The UK Growers Thread!
- Thread starter lozac123
- Start date
W Dragon
Well-Known Member
cheers lads was just talking to sambo and he gave me a link, the misses just come back in before coming back on here and ordered me some (thanks for the offer 3eyes appreciated mate!!!) just got a litre for now as I haven't got much to run about an oz of fluff and a couple of plants worth of scrap, just want a practice run as I've never done it before, sure I saw someone on here mentioning tights over a sieve for straining so gonna go that way and see what happens.
happy birthday IC3
happy birthday IC3
3eyes
Well-Known Member
W Dragon
Well-Known Member
We will need to talk soon mate, the clones I took before I lost all of them due to some unforseen circumstances on my part (cooked them and then froze them lol) and I've put the plants back in to reveg after chopping them early.
they've started to veg now mate and will be ready for cuttings in the next 2weeks max managed to keep the three of them livers/exo/physco so the fairy will be taking off soon.
the next batch of cuttings I'll be guarding with my life, no taking my eye off the ball this time, last time was costly enough to learn my lesson lol.
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
Making hash or oil with iso is piss easy. The only thing i can say to make sure not to do, and it's quite a vital one, do not scoop the sludge together in any form until the iso has completely evaporated. Don't do it. You'll get your hash/oil but it'll have iso mixed in with it. I personally didn't like smoking stuff that stank of iso so i gave it all to robbie or someone who wasn't fazed by that notion.
yeh hmm,,ive had a read and ther real good writups ,,,, if they grow they grow if not fuk its only a fiver a bean anyways
lesson haha
fukin birthday at the doctors uther than the detox wich im starting to cum out the other end i now got a nasty chest infection
fuking great stuff
W Dragon
Well-Known Member
cheers mate I'll remember that will prob be easier than putting them over the sieve lol
How long do you shake yours for mate? I was thinking 15-20 seconds a batch and then just repeating til I ran out of trim.
W Dragon
Well-Known Member
cheers mate I wouldn't have known that and probably would have tried chopping it as it dried thinking it would help the iso evaporate.
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
I shake for 30 seconds at a minimum and upto 50 seconds depending on how concerned i am about quality.
Once it's dried, it'll just be a rock hard powder covering the bottom of the dish, i use a flat based dish and then just scrape it all up with a razor, it'll resemble hash dust, even the heat from your hand though will cause it to go dark brown and start melting together. I liked having it both ways. Powder for just sprinkling onto a joint etc, or as a big glob that i could paint onto rizzlers. The only thing that comes to mind though is whether the heating of the oil will cause it to decarboxylate or some such, never really read into it too much, it all got me fucked beyond belief
Change in appearance and texture before and after heat, which was simply some warm tap water that the tin was then floated on.
Once it's dried, it'll just be a rock hard powder covering the bottom of the dish, i use a flat based dish and then just scrape it all up with a razor, it'll resemble hash dust, even the heat from your hand though will cause it to go dark brown and start melting together. I liked having it both ways. Powder for just sprinkling onto a joint etc, or as a big glob that i could paint onto rizzlers. The only thing that comes to mind though is whether the heating of the oil will cause it to decarboxylate or some such, never really read into it too much, it all got me fucked beyond belief
Change in appearance and texture before and after heat, which was simply some warm tap water that the tin was then floated on.
3eyes
Well-Known Member
Spot on shake 15-20 seconds strain then repeat as needed i pour the used iso back in the jar every shake no point using fresh iso
W Dragon
Well-Known Member
Happy days I'll make sure the 3 strains are there mate and that you get them, I won't be fucking it up this time so you'll have 3 great strains to play with whilst starting over, also they all root pretty fast normally providing you don't torture them to death lol
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
Different thing tbh. There are 101 ways of making hash and oil.
mrt1980
Well-Known Member
i looked into it and didnt fancy going out the garden with a drill and mixer in a bucket full of leaves with my neighbours. it seamed a bit cleaner to use water instead of iso but i want to be able to do it without making a mess or going outside.
@TTT i would have fucked about with it too mate if you hadnt said to leave it till the iso evaporated lol, cheers mate
im thinking of doing the second rinse to get the lower quality stuff. ive seen pics of it and it look half decent, the third rinse looks a bit shit tho
W Dragon
Well-Known Member
I shake for 30 seconds at a minimum and upto 50 seconds depending on how concerned i am about quality.
Once it's dried, it'll just be a rock hard powder covering the bottom of the dish, i use a flat based dish and then just scrape it all up with a razor, it'll resemble hash dust, even the heat from your hand though will cause it to go dark brown and start melting together. I liked having it both ways. Powder for just sprinkling onto a joint etc, or as a big glob that i could paint onto rizzlers. The only thing that comes to mind though is whether the heating of the oil will cause it to decarboxylate or some such, never really read into it too much, it all got me fucked beyond belief
View attachment 2294516View attachment 2294517
Change in appearance and texture before and after heat, which was simply some warm tap water that the tin was then floated on.
Thanks for the pointers mate that looks lovely!!!
I will cut the time down on the shake though as it's all early chop, I had a hissy fit and chopped them down at 6 wks after my timer failed so for 3 days they cooked through the heat on 24/7 and then after I spotted it after 3 days I watered them and left them alone for another 3day and returned to find my ducting had pulled back into the room and that the heat was just being recirculated nothing in or out just cycling the same hot air, they looked rough as fuck and i just fed them up nursed them back over a couple of days then chopped them and back into reveg so I'm not gonna get nothing great out of it.
W Dragon
Well-Known Member
cheers mate, this will be my game plan now then.
fucking hell was a good job I came on today otherwise I'd probably have ballsed it up, cheers lads
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
Genetically modified cannabis is literally 'around the corner'!
Cannabis Genome Uncloaked: Commentary on the Scientific Implications
Ethan Russo, MD
In August 2011, Medical Genomics and Nimbus Informatics reported and
published online the complete 400 million base-pair genomic sequence of Cannabis
sativa (commonly labeled by the obsolete pejorative term, marijuana, in the USA):
http://csativa.elasticbeanstalk.com/
This event yielded considerable uproar on newswires and Internet alike, sparking
a considerable amount of speculation as to potential implications and opportunities. The
human genome has been published for a decade, and has generated an impressive body of
work in the mean time that may lead to a better understanding of human diseases and
their treatment. What then, are the implications of this new discovery?
Firstly, while this development will, without doubt, spur further investigation, a
tremendous amount of genetic work on cannabis has been accomplished previously.
While Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive component of cannabis,
was characterized biochemically, and synthesized in 1964 (Gaoni et al., 1964), it was not
until 2004 that its biosynthetic enzyme, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase (THCA
synthase) was cloned (Sirikantaramas et al., 2004), and crystallized the following year
(Shoyama et al., 2005) Its counterpart in production of cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic
acid synthase, was previously purified and sequenced (Taura et al., 1996). See (Russo,
2011) for a recent review of the biosynthetic pathways in cannabis. This antecedent work
allowed the subsequent isolation of THCA synthase from an ancient cannabis sample
from Xinjiang, and even the identification of a unique single nucleotide polymorphism
(SNP) (Russo et al., 2008 ).
Thus, arguably, the genes for the most pharmacologically versatile
pharmacological components in cannabis have already been identified. Additionally, the
production of cannabis chemotypes (“strains”
expressing high titers of specific
phytocannabinoids has advanced greatly employing solely advanced Mendelian
techniques. Thus, not only high-THC and high-CBD lines have been isolated for
pharmacological production (de Meijer, 2004; de Meijer et al., 2003), but also highcannabigerol (CBG) (de Meijer et al., 2005) and cannabichromene (CBC) plants have
been developed (de Meijer et al., 2009a). Additionally, plants predominating in the
production the propyl-phytocannabinoid analogues, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV),
cannabidivarin (CBDV), cannabigerivarin (CBGV) and cannabichromivarin (CBCV) (de
Meijer, 2004) have been selectively bred and are the subjects of current pharmacological
research that portend to lead to interesting new pharmaceutical applications (Russo,
2011).
While the publication of the cannabis genome might simplify production of THCknockout plants, which theoretically could be attractive for industrial hemp production,
the need for such an approach has been obviated by a previous generation of plant
breeding work which has allowed the development of cultivars easily meeting the standard international requirement that such plants express 0.1% or less THC content
(McPartland et al., 2000; Small et al., 2003; Wirtshafter, 1997). Additionally,
cannabinoid-free plants have already been produced conventionally (de Meijer et al.,
2009b). Thus, one might reasonably question the strategy to genetically engineer
cannabis when the plant itself displays incredible plasticity to produce such bountiful
biochemical diversity. It is certain that the production of genetically modified organism
(GMO) cannabis plants would provoke tremendous controversy among consumers, and
that battles over patents and breeding rights would be obvious sequelae of such a
development. Any individual or corporation anticipating dipping their toes into such an
endeavor may expect to encounter a veritable regulatory minefield while attempting to
license such a product.
Other nightmare scenarios are easy to imagine. One would be exemplified by the
widespread Internet hoax of the 1990’s that purported that a mythical Professor Nanofsky
of Florida allegedly transfected THC production genes into orange seeds. While such
technology might be feasible, it would likely represent no more than a laboratory carnival
act in light of the cannabis plant’s already prodigious production capabilities. A stealthy
peppermint chemovar sporting illicit phytocannabinoids in its glandular trichomes might
be a more logical choice in such underground subversive daydreams.
At present, the published Medical Genomics/Nimbus informatics cannabis
sequence is not annotated, and it will require a great deal of foreknowledge and detective
work for anyone to ferret out the more interesting bits of information. The real potential
of this work, however, would seem to lie in the realm of epigenetics, the hereditable
changes in gene expression or phenotype of the cannabis plant. For example, we
currently know relatively little concerning factors regulating cannabinoid production in
the plant. Similarly, the biosynthetic pathways and regulation of cannabis terpenoids
remain potential research areas ripe for picking (Russo, 2011).
In summary, the publication of the cannabis genome is a welcome scientific
development, but one whose potential applications remain to be determined. The
possibilities are enticing, and it seems certain that many able minds will apply their
imagination to the task.
The starin they've done it with is 'Chemdawg',they're just now having problems reassembling the lines of code!..............
Cannabis Genome Uncloaked: Commentary on the Scientific Implications
Ethan Russo, MD
In August 2011, Medical Genomics and Nimbus Informatics reported and
published online the complete 400 million base-pair genomic sequence of Cannabis
sativa (commonly labeled by the obsolete pejorative term, marijuana, in the USA):
http://csativa.elasticbeanstalk.com/
This event yielded considerable uproar on newswires and Internet alike, sparking
a considerable amount of speculation as to potential implications and opportunities. The
human genome has been published for a decade, and has generated an impressive body of
work in the mean time that may lead to a better understanding of human diseases and
their treatment. What then, are the implications of this new discovery?
Firstly, while this development will, without doubt, spur further investigation, a
tremendous amount of genetic work on cannabis has been accomplished previously.
While Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive component of cannabis,
was characterized biochemically, and synthesized in 1964 (Gaoni et al., 1964), it was not
until 2004 that its biosynthetic enzyme, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase (THCA
synthase) was cloned (Sirikantaramas et al., 2004), and crystallized the following year
(Shoyama et al., 2005) Its counterpart in production of cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic
acid synthase, was previously purified and sequenced (Taura et al., 1996). See (Russo,
2011) for a recent review of the biosynthetic pathways in cannabis. This antecedent work
allowed the subsequent isolation of THCA synthase from an ancient cannabis sample
from Xinjiang, and even the identification of a unique single nucleotide polymorphism
(SNP) (Russo et al., 2008 ).
Thus, arguably, the genes for the most pharmacologically versatile
pharmacological components in cannabis have already been identified. Additionally, the
production of cannabis chemotypes (“strains”
expressing high titers of specificphytocannabinoids has advanced greatly employing solely advanced Mendelian
techniques. Thus, not only high-THC and high-CBD lines have been isolated for
pharmacological production (de Meijer, 2004; de Meijer et al., 2003), but also highcannabigerol (CBG) (de Meijer et al., 2005) and cannabichromene (CBC) plants have
been developed (de Meijer et al., 2009a). Additionally, plants predominating in the
production the propyl-phytocannabinoid analogues, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV),
cannabidivarin (CBDV), cannabigerivarin (CBGV) and cannabichromivarin (CBCV) (de
Meijer, 2004) have been selectively bred and are the subjects of current pharmacological
research that portend to lead to interesting new pharmaceutical applications (Russo,
2011).
While the publication of the cannabis genome might simplify production of THCknockout plants, which theoretically could be attractive for industrial hemp production,
the need for such an approach has been obviated by a previous generation of plant
breeding work which has allowed the development of cultivars easily meeting the standard international requirement that such plants express 0.1% or less THC content
(McPartland et al., 2000; Small et al., 2003; Wirtshafter, 1997). Additionally,
cannabinoid-free plants have already been produced conventionally (de Meijer et al.,
2009b). Thus, one might reasonably question the strategy to genetically engineer
cannabis when the plant itself displays incredible plasticity to produce such bountiful
biochemical diversity. It is certain that the production of genetically modified organism
(GMO) cannabis plants would provoke tremendous controversy among consumers, and
that battles over patents and breeding rights would be obvious sequelae of such a
development. Any individual or corporation anticipating dipping their toes into such an
endeavor may expect to encounter a veritable regulatory minefield while attempting to
license such a product.
Other nightmare scenarios are easy to imagine. One would be exemplified by the
widespread Internet hoax of the 1990’s that purported that a mythical Professor Nanofsky
of Florida allegedly transfected THC production genes into orange seeds. While such
technology might be feasible, it would likely represent no more than a laboratory carnival
act in light of the cannabis plant’s already prodigious production capabilities. A stealthy
peppermint chemovar sporting illicit phytocannabinoids in its glandular trichomes might
be a more logical choice in such underground subversive daydreams.
At present, the published Medical Genomics/Nimbus informatics cannabis
sequence is not annotated, and it will require a great deal of foreknowledge and detective
work for anyone to ferret out the more interesting bits of information. The real potential
of this work, however, would seem to lie in the realm of epigenetics, the hereditable
changes in gene expression or phenotype of the cannabis plant. For example, we
currently know relatively little concerning factors regulating cannabinoid production in
the plant. Similarly, the biosynthetic pathways and regulation of cannabis terpenoids
remain potential research areas ripe for picking (Russo, 2011).
In summary, the publication of the cannabis genome is a welcome scientific
development, but one whose potential applications remain to be determined. The
possibilities are enticing, and it seems certain that many able minds will apply their
imagination to the task.
The starin they've done it with is 'Chemdawg',they're just now having problems reassembling the lines of code!..............
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
Lol, growers worst nightmare kinda thing. I used to get lots of issues until i bought a timer with a contactor in it.
I find that ice hash is far far messier than iso. Ice means you end up with bags full of wet trim to scrape and wash out, with iso you end up with a pair of tights you can bin (you can use a bubblebag if you want) and a jar you need to scrape. If you spill any iso, it just evaporates
Here are two pics i have found of why i shouldn't have done as i did
Plenty of time in the pan and it still smelt of iso the moment you heated and worked it.
And yes, do it in small batches using as little iso as you can get away with else you'll be left for a few days waiting for a full liter of the stuff to evaporate and i can tell you, that stuff starts to get to your throat unless you have a well ventilated place to hide it away.
I find that ice hash is far far messier than iso. Ice means you end up with bags full of wet trim to scrape and wash out, with iso you end up with a pair of tights you can bin (you can use a bubblebag if you want) and a jar you need to scrape. If you spill any iso, it just evaporates
Here are two pics i have found of why i shouldn't have done as i did
Plenty of time in the pan and it still smelt of iso the moment you heated and worked it.
And yes, do it in small batches using as little iso as you can get away with else you'll be left for a few days waiting for a full liter of the stuff to evaporate and i can tell you, that stuff starts to get to your throat unless you have a well ventilated place to hide it away.
The Yorkshireman
Well-Known Member
That's a very interesting point mate,you can 'decarboxylate' oil at a relatively low temperature (GW Pharmaceuticals spin theirs at around 60c) but yet THC vaporises at around 185c logically leading to the conclusion that you it would 'decarboxylate' long before it vapourised meaning you wouldn't get high,but you DO so maybe time plays an important role. Maybe it has to be warmed for a much longer period of time for it to decarboxylate compared to the rapid heat given when burning/vaping.
Hmmmm.....food for thought.