justchillin42o
New Member
Does 1 gram of cannabis that is 20% THC mean that there are 200mg of THC total?
Does 1 gram of cannabis that is 20% THC mean that there are 200mg of THC total?
- Thread starter justchillin42o
- Start date
justchillin42o
New Member
I realize that my question was a little ambiguous. I meant does the 20% active cannabinoids rating for one gram of cannabis mean 200mg of active cannabinoids or is it 20% active cannabinoids compared to all of the cannabinoids so it is not really 200mg active cannabinoids because the weight of the dry plant matter is not factored in.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
No. In order to come to that conclusion you would have to assume that 20% of your marihuana plant is comprised of thc. Your plant would look like a pine tree after a fresh snowfall if that were the case.
Thc is measured as a percentage of total oils in a given sample.
Thc is measured as a percentage of total oils in a given sample.
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
i'm really embarrassed to say stow that i never realized that is what that meant for the life of me.. i could never figure out how they always say 20% thc, when you can simply look at a bud and tell that there's no way in hell that one fifth of that bud is thc..
oh well, learn something knew every day, lol..
but hey, how does that work for hash stow? i'd always thought that hash was mostly all trics, but i guess it's the same thing, even though it's mostly all trics, the trics aren't 100% thc.. guess i answered my own question, lol..
plus rep stow..
Sativied
Well-Known Member
No st0 is wrong, it is 20% of dried bud. THC can actually make up to about 95% of the total cannabinoids.
Don't take my word for it though, here's a quote from Mel Frank:
"In very potent strains, carefully prepared marijuana can be 30 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight (seeds and stems removed from flowering buds). "
I guess you guys never created BHO or looked at cannabis test results including the total percentage of cannabinoids.
Don't take my word for it though, here's a quote from Mel Frank:
"In very potent strains, carefully prepared marijuana can be 30 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight (seeds and stems removed from flowering buds). "
I guess you guys never created BHO or looked at cannabis test results including the total percentage of cannabinoids.
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
that's exactly why i asked about hash of any form sativied.. when i look at hash, good hash at least, looks like it's all tric heads.. say bho or even good bubble, under a mic, all i see is what i like to call is lolipops, the trics and the heads..
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Well it's why I said amazing huh. But keep in mind a living plant is like 75% water and resins are heavy compared to dry plant material.
Checkout the concentrates (and other) test results here for example: http://analytical360.com/testresults
Checkout the concentrates (and other) test results here for example: http://analytical360.com/testresults
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
that makes sense to me qwizo.. like i said, if you look at a bud shot, even a bud that's super covered in crystals, imo, there's no way 1/4 of that bud is thc.. thc is mostly only on the oustide of the buds, and there's way more bud on the inside of a bud then there is on the outside by simple math.. the larger mass that is not covered by thc is going to weigh way more then the lesser mass of the outside of the bud..
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
ok, so i just copied and pasted the first two results on the page...
SampleTHC-TotalCBD-TotalActivated-TotalAccess Point / Vendor
Sky Monster F1 #212.50%0.22%0.94%Rainier Xpress
Chem Dawg16.23%0.37%0.61%Clear Choice Collective
now, it just says thc total, blah blah blah %.. it doesn't break it down and say that the thc % is 25 % of the total weight, it just says 25%.. now, 25% of what? total oils, or total weight of the bud? it's not really making anything crystal clear imo..
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
to me, stow sounds like he's right sativied.. i just found this, and it very clearly says that the thc percent is not a percent of the gram, but rather the percent of total oils on the plant like he said.. copy and paste below..
So what is the truth about cannabis strength, how has it changed over the years? To answer that question, we need to understand a little about what cannabis is and how the authorities have treated it over the years.
How is cannabis strength measured?
Definition: Strength is the amount of drug per volume or weight of a sample. By way of illustration alcohol strength is measured in "ABV" - the percent of alcohol per volume, so a 5% beer will contain 5% alcohol, easy.
As the drug the government associates with cannabis intoxication is THC and we're dealing with a solid substance, the strength of cannabis would be expected to be measured in Mg THC per gram of sample, that's where we hit a problem.
Now it's worth mentioning that cannabis is not simply THC, it's a blend of various active substances, the different ratios of which produce a very different effect on the user. However, only THC is usually measured, which produces the first problem when we want to examine changes in the nature of cannabis over time. No measurements of the amounts of the other active chemicals have ever been made by the authorities on anything like a regular basis. This is at least in part explained by the fact that cannabis is illegal and what measurements there have been made have been first and foremost for enforcement, not quality control reasons.
However, at least the strength of cannabis has been measured in terms of THC per gram of sample? Sadly, no it hasn't.
In 2005, UKCIA asked the government's anti drug advertising agency "Talk to Frank" how cannabis strength is measured, we were asked to write to the Home Office:
"The percent THC is the weight for weight of THC in the dry cannabis sample selected for analysis. A fresh cannabis plant contains a lower proportion of THC as fresh plant material contains a lot of water."
It's unclear what they mean by "dry". Plant material, of the sort you might buy from your dealer - even if dry in the normal sense - is still composed largely of water, so what do they mean by "dry"? It would seem that what they're talking about is a desiccated sample, that is a sample in which all the water has been removed, in effect destroying the biomass material, leaving the oils produced by the plant. We did ask for confirmation on this point, but received no answer.
It's also worth pointing out here that the measurement is actually referred to as "potency", not strength. This careful use of words is typical of the Home Office when it's being economical with the truth. The reason this is important is because the amount of oils the plant produces is not a constant fraction of the overall weight. It will depend on which part of the plant is sampled and how it's grown.
So the measurement they make is a percentage by weight of the oils in the sample, not of the overall weight of the sample.
Is potency directly comparable to strength? It's not clear that it is. In which case, the strength of cannabis over the years has never really been measured. It's also apparent from the reply that no standard system for making the measurement has been employed ("some scientists use gas chromatography")
Based on this type of measuring regime, it's clear that making meaningful conclusions about changes in strength is going to be difficult.
How are samples selected for measurement?
Here we hit perhaps the biggest problem as no statistically valid monitoring of the cannabis on sale has ever happened. What measurements have been taken have been made on samples seized by the police in raids. How representative these samples are of the general situation is unknown, but as a sampling method it wouldn't be considered reliable enough for serious scientific analysis.
So: to recap:
The property measured - "potency" - bears an uncertain relation to "strength"
There has been no standard methodology for making the measurements over the years.
The samples measured are unlikely to be a statistically valid sample.
So what conclusions can be drawn from all this?
The most authoritative study in recent times was conducted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in 2004 - read it here.
The report makes it clear that the data is somewhat unreliable and it's therefore difficult to draw firm conclusions, but it accepts there has always been strong cannabis which can compare to today's offerings. It makes the point that home grown is going to be fresher and thus stronger (cannabis "goes off" with time as the THC breaks down).
There is undoubtedly some strong cannabis available these days, but there always has been. It's reasonable to suppose that, because it's fresher there will be a higher proportion of stronger samples (= better quality), but overall there is no evidence to support the claims of a massive increase in strength.
It should also be mentioned that commercial supplies of cannabis - herbal and hash - are often highly contaminated these days, a direct result of police action aimed at disrupting the supply. It's therefore obvious that most consumers aren't getting the higher value strong product.
Has there been any other change in Cannabis over the years?
The most obvious change in recent times in the UK has been the move from imported hash to "home grown" herbal. Originally of course, cannabis was grown outside in fields by people who had a long social history of using it, they knew what they were growing. These days most of the cannabis supplied commercially is grown intensively under lights, perhaps with the use of chemicals such as pesticides. The motivation for large scale grow ops of course is turnover and profit. How these plants compare with the original truly organic product is unknown. As we've never monitored the total composition of the product, we have no way of knowing if there is a difference.
It should be pointed out however that the cannabis grown under lights is still cannabis. Despite some claims in the press, it isn't "genetically engineered" or otherwise mutated. However, it's also fair to point out that the strains have been selected to grow well under these conditions.
Conclusion
No-one has a clue what's going on to be blunt. Prohibition has prevented any proper monitoring of the commercial supply and it's produced a potentially significant change in the way the cannabis is grown.
The original supply of naturally grown cannabis has been all but eradicated because of prohibition and prohibition has created the market for the new versions of so-called "skunk".
Given that the present regime is the root of so many uncertainties and the cause of so much ignorance, the Independent on Sunday's new found support for prohibition makes little sense.
__________________
link... http://www.ukcia.org/library/skunk_strength.php
So what is the truth about cannabis strength, how has it changed over the years? To answer that question, we need to understand a little about what cannabis is and how the authorities have treated it over the years.
How is cannabis strength measured?
Definition: Strength is the amount of drug per volume or weight of a sample. By way of illustration alcohol strength is measured in "ABV" - the percent of alcohol per volume, so a 5% beer will contain 5% alcohol, easy.
As the drug the government associates with cannabis intoxication is THC and we're dealing with a solid substance, the strength of cannabis would be expected to be measured in Mg THC per gram of sample, that's where we hit a problem.
Now it's worth mentioning that cannabis is not simply THC, it's a blend of various active substances, the different ratios of which produce a very different effect on the user. However, only THC is usually measured, which produces the first problem when we want to examine changes in the nature of cannabis over time. No measurements of the amounts of the other active chemicals have ever been made by the authorities on anything like a regular basis. This is at least in part explained by the fact that cannabis is illegal and what measurements there have been made have been first and foremost for enforcement, not quality control reasons.
However, at least the strength of cannabis has been measured in terms of THC per gram of sample? Sadly, no it hasn't.
In 2005, UKCIA asked the government's anti drug advertising agency "Talk to Frank" how cannabis strength is measured, we were asked to write to the Home Office:
"The percent THC is the weight for weight of THC in the dry cannabis sample selected for analysis. A fresh cannabis plant contains a lower proportion of THC as fresh plant material contains a lot of water."
It's unclear what they mean by "dry". Plant material, of the sort you might buy from your dealer - even if dry in the normal sense - is still composed largely of water, so what do they mean by "dry"? It would seem that what they're talking about is a desiccated sample, that is a sample in which all the water has been removed, in effect destroying the biomass material, leaving the oils produced by the plant. We did ask for confirmation on this point, but received no answer.
It's also worth pointing out here that the measurement is actually referred to as "potency", not strength. This careful use of words is typical of the Home Office when it's being economical with the truth. The reason this is important is because the amount of oils the plant produces is not a constant fraction of the overall weight. It will depend on which part of the plant is sampled and how it's grown.
So the measurement they make is a percentage by weight of the oils in the sample, not of the overall weight of the sample.
Is potency directly comparable to strength? It's not clear that it is. In which case, the strength of cannabis over the years has never really been measured. It's also apparent from the reply that no standard system for making the measurement has been employed ("some scientists use gas chromatography")
Based on this type of measuring regime, it's clear that making meaningful conclusions about changes in strength is going to be difficult.
How are samples selected for measurement?
Here we hit perhaps the biggest problem as no statistically valid monitoring of the cannabis on sale has ever happened. What measurements have been taken have been made on samples seized by the police in raids. How representative these samples are of the general situation is unknown, but as a sampling method it wouldn't be considered reliable enough for serious scientific analysis.
So: to recap:
The property measured - "potency" - bears an uncertain relation to "strength"
There has been no standard methodology for making the measurements over the years.
The samples measured are unlikely to be a statistically valid sample.
So what conclusions can be drawn from all this?
The most authoritative study in recent times was conducted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in 2004 - read it here.
The report makes it clear that the data is somewhat unreliable and it's therefore difficult to draw firm conclusions, but it accepts there has always been strong cannabis which can compare to today's offerings. It makes the point that home grown is going to be fresher and thus stronger (cannabis "goes off" with time as the THC breaks down).
There is undoubtedly some strong cannabis available these days, but there always has been. It's reasonable to suppose that, because it's fresher there will be a higher proportion of stronger samples (= better quality), but overall there is no evidence to support the claims of a massive increase in strength.
It should also be mentioned that commercial supplies of cannabis - herbal and hash - are often highly contaminated these days, a direct result of police action aimed at disrupting the supply. It's therefore obvious that most consumers aren't getting the higher value strong product.
Has there been any other change in Cannabis over the years?
The most obvious change in recent times in the UK has been the move from imported hash to "home grown" herbal. Originally of course, cannabis was grown outside in fields by people who had a long social history of using it, they knew what they were growing. These days most of the cannabis supplied commercially is grown intensively under lights, perhaps with the use of chemicals such as pesticides. The motivation for large scale grow ops of course is turnover and profit. How these plants compare with the original truly organic product is unknown. As we've never monitored the total composition of the product, we have no way of knowing if there is a difference.
It should be pointed out however that the cannabis grown under lights is still cannabis. Despite some claims in the press, it isn't "genetically engineered" or otherwise mutated. However, it's also fair to point out that the strains have been selected to grow well under these conditions.
Conclusion
No-one has a clue what's going on to be blunt. Prohibition has prevented any proper monitoring of the commercial supply and it's produced a potentially significant change in the way the cannabis is grown.
The original supply of naturally grown cannabis has been all but eradicated because of prohibition and prohibition has created the market for the new versions of so-called "skunk".
Given that the present regime is the root of so many uncertainties and the cause of so much ignorance, the Independent on Sunday's new found support for prohibition makes little sense.
__________________
link... http://www.ukcia.org/library/skunk_strength.php
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
I asked this very question to the lab tech where I get my samples tested at. That was what he told me. Think about it. There are hundreds of cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, etc. All resins/oils. Thc is but one of them, and you're suggesting that THC alone makes up 20%+ of a plants total weight? No, it does not. The resin glands/trichomes don't even make up 20% of a plants total weight, and THC is only one substance found within those glands. If what you're suggesting we're true, the samples could be influenced a great deal by how dry they were. If I brought in a slightly wet sample from a plant, and then brought in a sample that was dry as a popcorn fart, according to your theory my super dry sample should test way higher for THC than the other sample would. But that's not the case. The samples test very consistent even though the percentage of moisture is never the same.
qwizoking
Well-Known Member
isn't that why the tests show around 5% moisture..that's bone dry, most wood etc will stabilize in my environment around 15.
again yes it's very possible to yield that much by weight. we do it all the time in c&e
thc is obviously measured as a % of total cannabinoids which is why it can have a high thc ratio an not be frosty... hence the % hash oil example. but that total by weight easily hits 20
it's really not complicated
again yes it's very possible to yield that much by weight. we do it all the time in c&e
thc is obviously measured as a % of total cannabinoids which is why it can have a high thc ratio an not be frosty... hence the % hash oil example. but that total by weight easily hits 20
it's really not complicated
Sativied
Well-Known Member
As a previous poster said it's not that complicated, dry is dry. If you ever had your stuff tested you know what you bring to the test lab and what the results represent.
How Accurate is Potency Testing?
http://www.canorml.org/RingTestOShaughnessys_Aut11.pdf
Checkout Samples A, C, and D: replicates
Potency of herbal cannabis samples (A-D) is expressed in percent; 1% = 10 milligrams of cannabinoid per gram of plant material
As the results table show, % by weight [of the sample of course, not of some arbitrary amount of extract they use for testing].
Check out the third step, why do you think they weigh the sample before extracting what they actually test?
http://www.cannlabs.com/our-services/testing/potency/
Total active cannabinoids (racer, combine my previous posted link with post #
, more examples:https://www.rollitup.org/t/test-results.424532/
Or check out cannlabs
http://www.cannlabs.com/the-science/cannabinoids/
"Typically, a sample of flower will contain 8% – 20% THCA depending on the strain and cultivation method. Edibles commonly have a much lower concentration of THC, but cannabis concentrates (hash oils, waxes, etc.) can easily exceed 80% THC content."
The argument of 20% being more than one can perceive on a flower just isn't valid. While it seems to be the foundation of the erroneous claims above. Comparing plant material to dense resin with the naked eye isn't going to work well. Google total % of cannabinoids, plenty of strains that have a total of more than 25%. Of what is that 25% then? (rhetorical
)The % of THC of the total amount of cannabinoids is 60-95 (roughly, depends a lot per strain, obviously different with high CBD strain) which comes down to the 15-20% common in dry bud.
http://www.jollyfarmsdelivery.com/Tahoe Og Kush.pdf (bud)
http://wamoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Afghan-80.68.pdf (concentrate)
As you can see, the % associated with the THC % of an extract is (usually) much higher. The percentage of typically 15-20% refers to dry bud/flower and definitely not to the % of THC within the total of the cannabinoids (thousands of tests on the web that proof that).
"The dried marihuana currently provided by Health Canada is composed of the mature flowering heads of female plants and contains 12.5 ±2% total THC (Δ9-THC and Δ9-THCA), and less than 0.5% CBD, CBG, CBN, and CBC".
Read the Table 2: Relationship between THC Percent in Plant Material and the Available Dose (in mg THC) in an Average Joint
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/med/infoprof-eng.php#tbl2
http://www.medicaljane.com/2013/09/08/cannabis-lab-testing-as-explained-by-medical-jane/#
If 1g of cannabis flower is tested at 12.5% THC and 12.5% CBD, then it contains 125mg of THC and 125mg of CBD in the sample.
While some test centers may have their own way of doing things, if you take a dried bud to a test lab and it tells you 20% is THC than yes you got 200mg THC.
Edit: To add, starting July this year or Jan next year we in the Netherlands may have a 15% THC limit in the Netherlands, if the current MoJ gets his way. Obviously hard to enforce, but Sam the Skunkman suggested an interesting way to avoid problems: don't trim the buds.
Last edited:
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Well Sativied, I'm never one to claim that I know it all. As I stated above, I asked this very question of a lab tech where I have been taking my samples, and that was the explanation that he gave me. He sounded very certain of this, and being that this is what he does for a living I have/had no reason to doubt him. I guess I'm back to being uncertain about this.....
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
I'm confused. You seem to be saying that THC is measured by total sample weight (what Sativied is saying) and also that THC is measured as a percentage of total cannabinoids (what Im saying).
Which is it???
qwizoking
Well-Known Member
I agree with sativied......
I just worded it horribly
Google total % of cannabinoids, plenty of strains that have a total of more than 25%. Of what is that 25% then? (rhetorical )
The % of THC of the total amount of cannabinoids is 60-95 (roughly, depends a lot per strain, obviously different with high CBD strain) which comes down to the 15-20% common in dry bud.
As you can see, the % associated with the THC % of an extract is (usually) much higher. The percentage of typically 15-20% refers to dry bud/flower and definitely not to the % of THC within the total of the cannabinoids (thousands of tests on the web that proof that).
this ^^^^^^^^
I just worded it horribly
Google total % of cannabinoids, plenty of strains that have a total of more than 25%. Of what is that 25% then? (rhetorical )
The % of THC of the total amount of cannabinoids is 60-95 (roughly, depends a lot per strain, obviously different with high CBD strain) which comes down to the 15-20% common in dry bud.
As you can see, the % associated with the THC % of an extract is (usually) much higher. The percentage of typically 15-20% refers to dry bud/flower and definitely not to the % of THC within the total of the cannabinoids (thousands of tests on the web that proof that).
this ^^^^^^^^
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Those aren't mutually exclusive, so the answer to your question is both. Most test results that show results ranging from like 10-25% (applying to the OPs question) refer to THC% of the dry weight. If you compare that % (of weight) to the total % of cannabinoids (included in the better test results) you know the % of THC of the total cannabinoids (which is typically specifically mentioned if that is the case). Those results typically show roughly 55-95% refer to the % of total cannabinoids but can vary much more especially in high cbd strains.
Maybe my first link now makes more sense, combine it with post #8 which pretty much nailed it already:
http://analytical360.com/testresults
At TestLabAmsterdam they take exactly 0.1 gram of mj and 0.05gram if it's hash and the % in the test results (typically ranging from 13-20 for THC) apply to that weighted sample.
Both total cannabinoids and individual cannabinoids are expressed in % of weight. Proof is in the math of thousands of test results (add up the individual % and you'll get the total % (of weight of part of the sample you provide). If THC% were a % of that % you'd still have no idea of how much THC was in the sample you gave.
Bunch of stoners!
Last edited:
Similar threads
