50% thc

[bender420]

Oh yeah "Bullshit" comes in at 241% THC content.

 

[bender420]

Below is a portion of an article about how research was done to prove the marijuana currently being provided by underground cannabis clubs is far superior in quality to that currently provided by NIDA.
　
It points out that in individual testing there can be vast differences found beyond what was expected and that are not easily explainable and that only through multiple tests can something even close to being accurate found.
　
Remember now … these were the findings of a research lab … and even if you do not read much of it at least read the last sentence …. and remember … this is a research lab talking …. then remember what I previously said about testing inaccuracies and how at best THC ratings are comparatives and not accuracies to be relied on.
　
"Our original aim had been to obtain a broad-spectrum quantitative analysis of as many of the 60-plus naturally occurring cannabinoids as possible, in the hope of detecting differences that might produce differing therapeutic effects among the samples. To our disappointment, however, our lab could obtain laboratory standards only for the three most common cannabinoids, delta-9-THC, cannabidiol (CBD), and cannabinol (CBN).


A total of 47 different samples of medical cannabis were submitted by over a half dozen different providers and patients' cooperatives ranging from California to the East Coast. Included were 42 samples of sinsemilla bud, three samples of hashish or resin; one liquid sample of a milk-based cannabis drink ("Mother's Milk"), and one capsule of an oral whole leaf preparation.


Upon analysis by GCMS, the potency of the 42 sinsemilla samples was determined to range from 10.2% to 31.6% THC, with a mean of 19.4%. These results were surprisingly high, given that the average potency of marijuana in the U.S. has been typically estimated at around 3% to 4% by NIDA, with higher grade sinsemilla ranging towards 10% - 15%.

The highest potency recorded came from a sample of hashish, which registered 68.6%. Yet even a sample of Mexican commercial grade registered a surprisingly high 11%, twice what we had expected. All of this cast a troubling shadow of doubt on our test results, although it appeared likely that we were dealing with highly potent varieties.


In contrast, the CBD levels observed were surprisingly low. Only four of the sinsemilla samples had more than 0.3% CBD, and 35 of them had only trace amounts (<0.1%). However, one sample had an astoundingly high CBD content of 28.0% (plus 11.6% THC). Another registered 5.6% CBD and 13.4% THC. Aside from these two anomalies, the CBD results were frankly disappointing, as we had hoped to discover significant variations in the content of the samples, with accompanying variations in medical activity. Because CBD is suspected to have peculiar efficacy for control of muscle spasms and for damping anxiety and "panic reactions" caused by THC, we had hypothesized that certain patients would tend to prefer high-CBD varieties. In fact, however, it appears that few patients are ever exposed to high-CBD cannabis. Unfortunately, we were unable to procure additional specimens of the high-CBD varieties for further testing.
&#12288;
As for CBN, the majority of samples showed only trace amounts. The highest level detected was 1.4%, and only one other sample tested above 1%. CBN is a breakdown product of THC, so high CBN levels are expected in old, degraded samples. This was confirmed by the fact that one of the samples above 1% CBN was known to be a year old. The prevalence of low CBN in the samples was evidence that most available medical cannabis tends to be fresh and well-preserved. Otherwise, these results were of limited interest, as there are few if any known medical effects of CBN.
&#12288;
Another disappointing surprise was the failure to detect more than trace levels of THC or CBD in the liquid "Mother's Milk" sample. Upon further investigation, the lab determined that this was because it is impossible to extract cannabinoids from fat-based liquids using standard methanol extraction techniques. Consulting with other researchers, we found that there is no known method for isolating THC from fat-based liquids.
&#12288;
Later, we located a lab that claimed to have developed a secret, proprietary method for extracting cannabinoids from fat. With considerable difficulty, we arranged to have the lab test the Mother's Milk. To our disappointment, however, once again only trace amounts of THC and CBD were detected. Just to make sure, one of us swallowed a sample of the Mother's Milk (which by now had spent several months in the freezer) and found it to be delightfully potent. Evidently, the lab's technique had failed. It appears that further advances in testing technology will be needed in order to properly analyze fat-based oral cannabis products such as Mother's milk, bhang, ghee, and possibly baked goods such as brownies.
&#12288;
The extraordinarily high THC potency in the sinsemilla samples raised troubling doubts about the reliability of the test results. The lab director expressed concern about the sample preparation, saying that he had noted a tendency for the oils to separate from the rest of the liquid during extraction. We therefore decided to re-submit some of the samples for a second round of testing. We selected six samples, including the one with anomalously high CBD. As a check, we added two new samples with presumably low potency: a sample of low-grade leaf, and some of the government's own marijuana, grown for NIDA, whose potency is known to be in the 2.9 - 3.9 % range.
&#12288;
In the second round of testing, the average THC potency for the seven samples declined slightly to 15.1% from 17.8% in the first round. For the six low-CBD samples, second-round potencies varied between 65% and 128% of their first-round values (see table). The high CBD sample registered a precipitous decline of 60 - 65% in both THC and CBD, bolstering suspicions of some kind of irregularity in the sample. NIDA's marijuana came in at 3.9%, at the high end of its expected range, and the low-grade shake came in at 2%. One sinsemilla sample registered a record 35% on re-testing.
&#12288;
The second round of testing failed to dispel our uncertainty about the results. Overall, the trend of the data seemed to confirm our suspicions that the first round results had been systematically too high. However, the wide variation in individual test results between the two rounds undermined confidence in any firm conclusions. While it seemed reasonable to infer that we were dealing with some genuinely potent cannabis, the high-range results for NIDA's pot suggested that the second round might still be too high.


After some months of head-scratching, we stumbled upon the opportunity to re-check our test results via a circuitous route to a second lab. This lab, recognized for its expertise in cannabis potency testing, was the same one that tested the Mother's Milk. In addition to the Mother's Milk, we submitted seven sinsemilla samples, the high-CBD sample, and the high-potency hashish.

The potencies were uniformly lower in the third round than the first, by proportions ranging from 25 - 50%. All of this clearly implied that our first round test results had been systematically on the high side. Still, the average potency of the seven sinsemilla samples was an impressive 15.4%, four or five times greater than NIDA's marijuana.


From this, we can safely conclude that the marijuana currently being provided by underground cannabis clubs is far superior in quality to that currently provided by NIDA to the eight legal medical marijuana patients. Due to its higher THC content, patients need consume only a fraction of the harmful, non-medically-active tars and gases in cannabis smoke in order to achieve the same effective dose. This is of course especially significant in light of the recent Institute of Medicine report, which singled out smoking as the major adverse health hazard of medical marijuana. Aside from THC, we could find no significant presence of the other tested cannabinoids, CBN and CBD, except in one or two anomalous samples. There is thus little evidence that patients are currently making use of differing varieties of cannabis to treat different medical conditions, although it is possible that other, untested cannabinoids remain lurking in the background.

Finally, our experience shows that laboratory measurements of cannabinoid content can vary widely from test to test and lab to lab, and are entirely undependable in the case of fat-based cannabis liquids."

Something tells me breeders likely use the results of the highest rated of all the tests performed for their strains, the ones that make them look so impressive. That is if they actually are ones that do have them tested and show ratings.
&#12288;
I think one thing that surprised me is the CBD findings. They were supplied a total of 47 different samples of medical cannabis. Many forms of medical cannabis are high in CBD. If I remember the figure right Green House Seeds Big Bang, that is sold in Dutch pharmacies as prescription medicine. It has an extremely relaxing effect due to its level of CBD. Green House Seeds says Big Bang has a CBD percentage of 1.5. Now I doubt Big Bang was among those tested but with there being 47 different medical marijuana strains tested I would think that there would be a few that were close to being 1.5% CBD if that were in fact an average accurate figure for strains high in CBD. But only four samples showed a CBD percentage higher than .3.

Now two did show very high CBD percentages, 28% and 5.6%. Later testing showed a 60% to 65% decrease so while in those two cases the percentages would still be very high in most cases little more than trace amounts were found and that really made me wonder about the accuracy of CBD claims as much as the accuracy of THC claims, or in both cases a near total lack thereof.

excellent info.

 

[Brick Top]

very good read, i like the part about after they test the milk they don't think the numbers are high enough so they drink it but the one thing that reiderates all of our points is the fact that from test 2 to test 3 the result changed by 50-60 percent (when ur talkin percent this is a shizz load). and i knew g-13 was bullcrap and the government only knows bunk, can't deny the numbers on that one (3.9% com0pared to 28%) i knew we were better. Very good post Bricktop, mad props

I did like the test drinking thing but it made me think a awhile. It is common knowledge that eating marijuana gives you the greatest effect so evidently the THC and other cannabinoids are more efficiently processed and used by the body that way.
&#12288;
Both tests on the milk only showed trace elements of THC and CBD.
&#12288;
While eating marijuana does give you a greater effect it is not enough greater that only trace elements would be sufficient but evidently whatever the actual percentage in the product is it works.
&#12288;
The final conclusion was basically that testing cannot be considered to be accurate and in the case of fat-based cannabis liquids not at all to be able to be considered to be accurate.
&#12288;
I wonder if the flip side of that coin is actually where the truth might be found? Possibly the tests on fat-based cannabis liquids was the most accurate and when eaten only trace elements are needed to do the job. What would logically follow would be the pot of the past, that those who so fondly remember as being so special but is today believed to have been much lower in potency, was actually extremely potent and the scale used to rate it in the past was more accurate than what is used to rate potency today.
&#12288;
Maybe the pot of the past really did range from about 3.5% THC for low-grade to 12% THC or maybe 15% THC for the very most potent … but then maybe the pot of today actually only rates roughly the same for the highest levels of THC but the biggest change has been the loss of the very lowest grade levels of THC so the average THC potency level is much higher than in the past but not the actual total THC level.
&#12288;
There are so many discrepancies and so many disparities in testing on any and every level that no one can really put much faith in any of it other than to use it as a basic general comparative when it comes to making selections.

It certainly is not accurate enough and standardized enough yet to make any claims that can really be believed about pot of either the past or the present.

 

[Brick Top]

As far as I know, "Bullshit" is the strongest strain I have ever smoked.

You smoke bull shit? Ick.

 

[shepj]

has anyone smoked/grew/heard of indica 50 it claims to be 50% thc? how is this possible they also say they have some strains in the 40 like elephant bud.

50% thc indica.. I have! It's called hash! lol

 

[Anjinsan]

I call bs on 50% thc strains.

I call bs on anything over 25%.

How would one increase the level of thc in a strain? breed it with a stronger strain right?

But how would you make the very strongest strain...stronger?

I don't think that you can. So there is ultimately going to be a limit...

 

[milowerx96]

Ehem...... 50% No way. I have a hard time believing 22%. I know it can be done but everything has to be just right. Nutes, climate, light and 14 other little things.

 

[Brick Top]

If marijuana breeding, when it comes to potency, hasn&#8217;t already topped out, or nearly topped out, I think it will come very soon. Personally I think it has pretty much topped out. There might be another gem or two to be found but I do not hold out much hope for it.
&#12288;
When was the last time a really major knock the marijuana world on its collective butt strain been released? When was the last strain that had a real true major impact on herb released? I don&#8217;t mean Cup winners, I mean real true heavyweight champs, how many have there actually been anyway?
&#12288;
Whenever you cross something you are dealing with things with genetic limits. By combining them you can alter the genetics but at this point in breeding the existing genetic limitations are far more limiting than most people seem to believe or want to believe them to be.
&#12288;
A pie can only be sliced into so many pieces.
&#12288;
It has gotten to the point where breeding is at times also at the very least partially back breeding. So many breeder lines have strains that share some genetics that when they then make crosses using either some pure strain and one of their crosses or a cross between two crosses, or a triple or more cross too for that fact, they will at least to some degree be back breeding. They will be breeding back into itself part of the genetic chain.
&#12288;
That is not to say that any or all back breeding is bad. There have been strains where at some point in their development back breeding is what it took for the breeder to get as close to what they were shooting for as they could.
&#12288;
Regardless of how it is put together you still have certain genetic limitations that will not be able to be surpassed no matter how many attempts to cross things you make.
&#12288;
I don&#8217;t think we will see a real true breakthrough until someone can fully identify all marijuana DNA and figure out its sequencing and can isolate things like chains that regulate how many THC producing capitate trichomes will grow per square millimeter or whatever and what chain regulates THC production and those chains can then be spliced into the proper sequence in the existing chain to then greatly increase those things.
&#12288;
That is when pot will become very interesting.

 

[pacman]

i agree with th no breakthru buds anytime soon, in my opinion the latest and greatest are ed super bud and jack herrer, i would say super silver haze but haze is old school sooo... no breakthrus that is until i make my bean company! and i won't use percentages, all i would do is a page description on high, page on taste, page on growth ect. then loads of pics in different conditions, y'all wont be buying my beans cause of a number i slap on there ull buy em cause they'll knock u on your ass

 

[MisterMicro]

Did anyone here about the Cheese strains in europe in the mid 20's thc range? I heard some news bit on it at one time....

 

[shepj]

THC % doesn't mean shit without reference to the other %'s of cannabinoids present, IMHO.

 

[kappainf]

Agreed thc% is all BS. Thc is a very small portion of a trichome.

 

[dak999]

I have to say that I just grew some of the seed that you are talking about paid 1000 for 10 seeds. I would have to say no to the high THC numbers. A little disappointed but had to try it.

 

[propain]

thats why i just smoke it and see how i feel thats how i measure thc content.

 

[mkay420]

this may help enlighten some.... http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/18/government.marijuana.garden/

 

[Brick Top]

I have to say that I just grew some of the seed that you are talking about paid 1000 for 10 seeds. I would have to say no to the high THC numbers. A little disappointed but had to try it.

If by chance you purchased BC Seeds Euphoria, well this might in part explain your level of disappointment.

I hope that is not what you purchased.



This is the rip-off section. The following seedbanks I've heard many bad things about. They are NOT recommended. aka means also known as. X means they seldom or never send the product. N means sending non viable seeds (non sprouting seeds) M indicates they send very inferior seeds or nothing at all.


A-1 Seedbank (X,N)
BC Seeds (X,M)
Beeoo (X)
Fairlight (X,N)
Greenmanspage (X,M)
marijuanaseed.us (X) Software Services aka Cannabis4u aka Medical hemp aka [email protected] [L.Pafort] (X)
Richies Seedshack (X)
Stinkey's (X)
Weedseed (X)
Pot a Gold (X)



http://www.seedbankupdate.com/su.html

 

[Fditty00]

Thunderfuck is in the 30s google it. Seeds are $300 if they have in stock!

 

[doitinthewoods]

Thunderfuck is in the 30s google it. Seeds are $300 if they have in stock!

I highly doubt that it's the real matanuska thunderfuck. It's my understanding that it's incredibly hard to find the real thing. IMO they're selling a name, but I"m not telling you not to buy them.

 

[mkay420]

i thought the original thunderfck... the real thunderfuck was clone only....

 

[Azgrow]

the true mvtf is clone only..an in alaska is like the cali kush...lots of people claiming mvtf when it aint....mvtf is a grapey/chololate taste that has a tendency to autoflower....in an aera that see's 20hours of light everyday for 3 months...an only a 4month true growing season..the mvtf had to be an auto to work out properly od....az