A detailed explanation of why fast curing buds in preferable to slow curing.
- Status
Oldmanstoner
- 142
- 43
I've done the fast cure before, if done correctly I'm sure you get use to it! LOL, not like the frozen method, that works also but leaves herb with a minty taste that I really don't like, kind of like smoking menthol cigs.
K
kolah
- 4,829
- 263
[email protected]Elvis comments!
I think potency is a huge factor in evaluation. Why not test THC percentage in fast dried buds and compare it to slow dried ones. If THC begins breaking down right after the plant is chopped then it would seem that THC levels would be highest right after harvest and much lower after a 2-4 week-slow cure due mainly to the degradation process (dying trichromes). Maybe Ol' Squiggs will chime in or some other science nerds to help us out. ;)
I think potency is a huge factor in evaluation. Why not test THC percentage in fast dried buds and compare it to slow dried ones. If THC begins breaking down right after the plant is chopped then it would seem that THC levels would be highest right after harvest and much lower after a 2-4 week-slow cure due mainly to the degradation process (dying trichromes). Maybe Ol' Squiggs will chime in or some other science nerds to help us out. ;)
K
kolah
- 4,829
- 263
thinking a bit more on this.......is it possible that the trichromes need a cure time to increase the THC potency? dunno.
K
kolah
- 4,829
- 263
see linkbelow.."Inside the trichrome." a good read. It's stated that a larger number of trichromes does not indicate more potency rather it is due to the actual contents within it. Also of note is that if we go back to what we already know (or think we know)..that peak potency is at it's highest during the cloudy phase of the tris then it seems to me that (possibly) the longer buds are cured the lesser the potency. ??
OR, is the integrity (and potency) of the trichromes still preserved in the longer curing process?
I see no other way to come to conclusions without non-biased lab testing.
PS "Elvis has left the building."
OR, is the integrity (and potency) of the trichromes still preserved in the longer curing process?
I see no other way to come to conclusions without non-biased lab testing.
PS "Elvis has left the building."
delae632
IG @delae_632
Supporter
- 2,573
- 263
I'm tired of babysitting you guys in this thread. It's on lockdown. o_O
delae632
IG @delae_632
Supporter
- 2,573
- 263
Unlocked. Any more trouble in the thread and the instigators will be banned.
Dirty White Boy
- 884
- 93
I look at and think of cannabis just like an artist creating fine bourbon cognac or wine...you can certainly! Create a product in less time no question....but I don't see cannabis being a vodka while in bud form. Of course like vodka we can quick dry and concentrate and eh its all fairly all similar. When talking about flowers....I believe it takes more time. Not being said there isn't premium vodka or concentrates I'm just saying anyone who has smoked quick dry flowers compared too slowly dried and cured flowers know with almost zero question which is better. I'd love too see some quick to slow cured flowers in the lab...however those reports wouldn't make a lick of difference too my personal preference.
UCMETOO
- 495
- 93
since i'm very interested in this conversation would you define, "trouble" and "Instigators" i want to be well with in the lines!!!
click80
- 747
- 63
Thank you very much for reopening this thread and hope that people will act like adults. Agree to disagree and move on if that's the case, but there are people like me that want to have these discussions.
I have a longer post to make later but my reason for asking that this thread be reopened is I have long questioned the science behind slow curing. There is research related that I have to relook up but some had to do with apple orchards flooding at harvest and the effects of alcohol breakdown in the fruit. I know it sounds totally unrelated but it's the chemistry involved that is related to certain breakdown pathways in cannabis bud and terpernes, anyway I need to find it again and post. I think Tobacco curing led to some of the practices and beliefs handed down in cannabis curing, also there behaviorism is involved in my opinion, people get used to smoking something with a certain flavor and regardless of potency, that is probably negligibly different, the person will insist that slow curing is better, as that's the instilled stimulus-response or behavior response, whatever the correct term is.
I am became intrigued with the curing subject for one reason because one of my very first customers insisted on fast cured. Not the way described by Yarra, but close enough. He likes that taste. He is also about 63 and from Cali and has been a daily smoker for 50 years. Then others, who I experimented on, reported great things about curing it colder and faster. I have other similar anecdotal information, but my point being is that I have more than a few that want it fast cured, for taste. They don't really care about the strength but say that it's strong. I have good strains. Just a few and I stick with them so it's somewhat of a control in growing the same genetics time and again.
So after reading the OP I looked up some of the terminology, it's a tough read, but everything the man posted is scientifically accurate so far. I am about the science, I don't believe in the magic mojo model of growing, for myself. If it makes them happy then that's what matters. Again, I am into the science and it's become a obsession. Cannabis is biological entity and operates according to established biological principles. I now have over 40 journals that I have kept over the last 5-6 years and for me it's obvious that science is where to go for the anwers. I found it extremely funny when research into the relationship of music and plant growth found that it was Rap that had the best effect. Magic? No, the low frequency waves boosted certain functions, mainly cellulose production and also certain enzymes. Anyway, no magic, it was just the frequency.
I have a longer post to make later but my reason for asking that this thread be reopened is I have long questioned the science behind slow curing. There is research related that I have to relook up but some had to do with apple orchards flooding at harvest and the effects of alcohol breakdown in the fruit. I know it sounds totally unrelated but it's the chemistry involved that is related to certain breakdown pathways in cannabis bud and terpernes, anyway I need to find it again and post. I think Tobacco curing led to some of the practices and beliefs handed down in cannabis curing, also there behaviorism is involved in my opinion, people get used to smoking something with a certain flavor and regardless of potency, that is probably negligibly different, the person will insist that slow curing is better, as that's the instilled stimulus-response or behavior response, whatever the correct term is.
I am became intrigued with the curing subject for one reason because one of my very first customers insisted on fast cured. Not the way described by Yarra, but close enough. He likes that taste. He is also about 63 and from Cali and has been a daily smoker for 50 years. Then others, who I experimented on, reported great things about curing it colder and faster. I have other similar anecdotal information, but my point being is that I have more than a few that want it fast cured, for taste. They don't really care about the strength but say that it's strong. I have good strains. Just a few and I stick with them so it's somewhat of a control in growing the same genetics time and again.
So after reading the OP I looked up some of the terminology, it's a tough read, but everything the man posted is scientifically accurate so far. I am about the science, I don't believe in the magic mojo model of growing, for myself. If it makes them happy then that's what matters. Again, I am into the science and it's become a obsession. Cannabis is biological entity and operates according to established biological principles. I now have over 40 journals that I have kept over the last 5-6 years and for me it's obvious that science is where to go for the anwers. I found it extremely funny when research into the relationship of music and plant growth found that it was Rap that had the best effect. Magic? No, the low frequency waves boosted certain functions, mainly cellulose production and also certain enzymes. Anyway, no magic, it was just the frequency.
caregiverken
Fear Not!
Supporter
- 11,535
- 438
Good question..
I was wondering the same thing.
I just want to say Im still confused about the word "Cure"
@click80 or anyone esle, the 1st few days after harvest are not curing days..right?
Thats called "drying"
One more time..."curing" comes after "drying" right?
So please, tell me what "Fast cure" means
thanks..thats all from me :)
click80
- 747
- 63
Nomenclature should be established. I agree. I have not even finished reading the first post though and don't have the time, unfortunately, to explain the whole thread. That would probably be a good place to start, although the OP is a real headbanger. Have a Google tab open, unless you have a biochemistry degree, or something close.
I did read the whole thread and you can get the gist from that, but as far as the particular "Fast Cure" that the OP was about, it's going to take me some time to digest it and I do have a science background.
I did read the whole thread and you can get the gist from that, but as far as the particular "Fast Cure" that the OP was about, it's going to take me some time to digest it and I do have a science background.
UCMETOO
- 495
- 93
Honestly that all i was saying, that the information was unaccessable ( within the origional post ) as well as unclear, and that this was at best an opinion and not a "useable technique". If all that was being offered was a jumping off point to do your own research, that should have been stated. I really want to thank everyone that has taken the time to try to make YS post work for the rest of us,......especially if you have made the effort one of clearification and not an ego exercise.
nastiestnate
- 17
- 3
"I think Tobacco curing led to some of the practices and beliefs handed down in cannabis curing, also there behaviorism is involved in my opinion, people get used to smoking something with a certain flavor and regardless of potency, that is probably negligibly different, the person will insist that slow curing is better, as that's the instilled stimulus-response or behavior response, whatever the correct term is"
^ this is the assumption ppl unfamilar with having had quality cured cannabis around tend to make. its magic but its there.
and i like how ppl talk about egos but we are the main in belief of what is working and the people going against
the grain for sake of time arent providing anything but science journals unrelated to cannabis and expect total unquestionable authority when you cant provide anything ... like nothing... but more journals...
i can find links too like i said in other threads that requires work(im stoned and lazy) for some already common sense stuff that most ppl already know and unserstand so whats the point. whys the burden placed on the already proven method.. hows that ego... more like mmj culture preservation
so many on topic questions and statements were provided that the op ignored which is ego. every thing he wrote spews arrogance and hope hes trying to learn how to take notes.
also it is very thoughtfully amusing going back and reading these posts in some of these threads cause clearly some of you have no idea of what is going on but try damn hard to act like you do. very sad to see dumb followers. blind leading the dumb.
^ this is the assumption ppl unfamilar with having had quality cured cannabis around tend to make. its magic but its there.
and i like how ppl talk about egos but we are the main in belief of what is working and the people going against
the grain for sake of time arent providing anything but science journals unrelated to cannabis and expect total unquestionable authority when you cant provide anything ... like nothing... but more journals...
i can find links too like i said in other threads that requires work(im stoned and lazy) for some already common sense stuff that most ppl already know and unserstand so whats the point. whys the burden placed on the already proven method.. hows that ego... more like mmj culture preservation
so many on topic questions and statements were provided that the op ignored which is ego. every thing he wrote spews arrogance and hope hes trying to learn how to take notes.
also it is very thoughtfully amusing going back and reading these posts in some of these threads cause clearly some of you have no idea of what is going on but try damn hard to act like you do. very sad to see dumb followers. blind leading the dumb.
Last edited:
click80
- 747
- 63
"
and i like how ppl talk about egos but we are the main in belief of what is working and the people going against
the grain for sake of time arent providing anything but science journals unrelated to cannabis and expect total unquestionable authority when you cant provide anything ... like nothing... but more journals...
i can find links too like i said in other threads that requires work(im stoned and lazy) for some already common sense stuff that most ppl already know and unserstand so whats the point. whys the burden placed on the already proven method.. hows that ego... more like mmj culture preservation."
I'm sorry that you are seemingly offended that I question conventional wisdom, if that was what you meant. It was kind of hard to understand your point. But as for questioning conventional wisdom, I am proud that I do. Puts me in good company over the centuries, starting with Socrates, and I am sure Galileo felt the same although he recanted after being shown some torture chambers of The Inquisition.
I wanted this reopened for the sake of discussion of the science in the OP. That's all. As far as placing "burdens are placed on already proven method. Well that is what I do when I think "proven method" or "Conventional Wisdom" might be in question. I am not saying that Conventional Wisdom is evil. Take the current medical position on smoking. It seems like common sense to us now that inhaling superheated carcinogenic vapor on a regular basis leads to health issues, but fifty years ago, doctors swore up and down that it wasn’t harmful. They’d light up while taking your temperature, and it was common for pregnant women to enjoy a nice smoke after Hubby had taken her temperature during an afternoon quickie. There are many examples of CW being skewed in some way, partially or in totality. Eventually, the lung cancer-smoking link became undeniable, and scientists now unanimously agree that smoking is bad for your health. It took them awhile, but they did get it right, and Conventional Wisdom shifted to acknowledge this “new” reality.
I like new realities because our world advances when that comes into play. I would bring up Cognitive Dissonance, but that is boring and might be insulting if taken out of the context in which offered.
In most cases, CW is a lumbering beast: slow to move, but difficult to alter course once its big bullish head is set on moving in a certain direction. Oftentimes, entire careers are staked on maintaining its veracity. When that veracity is challenged, either by critics or by experiment, the challenger is often silenced. No, I’m not talking about some conspiracy theory wherein a rival scientist is snuffed out by a cabal of evil scientists. Rather, it’s that a conforming chorus of assent can be mobilized to drown out even the most rigorously defended thesis, just as long as Conventional Wisdom is at stake. The simple fact that faulty Conventional Wisdom – of any kind– is mostly supported, in my opinion, by NOT malevolent evil people, but altruistic and good-intentioned people is what makes it so difficult to defeat. Scientists, nutritionists, and doctors, and religious folk are generally convinced that the CW they support and defend is "the truth" and in the best interest of the population. These aren’t evil geniuses; these are good people operating from a fundamentally flawed stance.
So that long and burdensome paragraph is my way of saying, if I want to question CW, I am allowed and I will. Hopefully in a reasonable, non-name calling, logical and polite discussion.
I am not saying that either side is right on the current topic. Just because I checked out some of the science quoted in the OP and found it sound does not mean I agree, but it does mean I am intrigued and I do say that there is available now some good (new) science in plant biology that makes this interesting to me for many reasons and I want to pursue it.
and i like how ppl talk about egos but we are the main in belief of what is working and the people going against
the grain for sake of time arent providing anything but science journals unrelated to cannabis and expect total unquestionable authority when you cant provide anything ... like nothing... but more journals...
i can find links too like i said in other threads that requires work(im stoned and lazy) for some already common sense stuff that most ppl already know and unserstand so whats the point. whys the burden placed on the already proven method.. hows that ego... more like mmj culture preservation."
I'm sorry that you are seemingly offended that I question conventional wisdom, if that was what you meant. It was kind of hard to understand your point. But as for questioning conventional wisdom, I am proud that I do. Puts me in good company over the centuries, starting with Socrates, and I am sure Galileo felt the same although he recanted after being shown some torture chambers of The Inquisition.
I wanted this reopened for the sake of discussion of the science in the OP. That's all. As far as placing "burdens are placed on already proven method. Well that is what I do when I think "proven method" or "Conventional Wisdom" might be in question. I am not saying that Conventional Wisdom is evil. Take the current medical position on smoking. It seems like common sense to us now that inhaling superheated carcinogenic vapor on a regular basis leads to health issues, but fifty years ago, doctors swore up and down that it wasn’t harmful. They’d light up while taking your temperature, and it was common for pregnant women to enjoy a nice smoke after Hubby had taken her temperature during an afternoon quickie. There are many examples of CW being skewed in some way, partially or in totality. Eventually, the lung cancer-smoking link became undeniable, and scientists now unanimously agree that smoking is bad for your health. It took them awhile, but they did get it right, and Conventional Wisdom shifted to acknowledge this “new” reality.
I like new realities because our world advances when that comes into play. I would bring up Cognitive Dissonance, but that is boring and might be insulting if taken out of the context in which offered.
In most cases, CW is a lumbering beast: slow to move, but difficult to alter course once its big bullish head is set on moving in a certain direction. Oftentimes, entire careers are staked on maintaining its veracity. When that veracity is challenged, either by critics or by experiment, the challenger is often silenced. No, I’m not talking about some conspiracy theory wherein a rival scientist is snuffed out by a cabal of evil scientists. Rather, it’s that a conforming chorus of assent can be mobilized to drown out even the most rigorously defended thesis, just as long as Conventional Wisdom is at stake. The simple fact that faulty Conventional Wisdom – of any kind– is mostly supported, in my opinion, by NOT malevolent evil people, but altruistic and good-intentioned people is what makes it so difficult to defeat. Scientists, nutritionists, and doctors, and religious folk are generally convinced that the CW they support and defend is "the truth" and in the best interest of the population. These aren’t evil geniuses; these are good people operating from a fundamentally flawed stance.
So that long and burdensome paragraph is my way of saying, if I want to question CW, I am allowed and I will. Hopefully in a reasonable, non-name calling, logical and polite discussion.
I am not saying that either side is right on the current topic. Just because I checked out some of the science quoted in the OP and found it sound does not mean I agree, but it does mean I am intrigued and I do say that there is available now some good (new) science in plant biology that makes this interesting to me for many reasons and I want to pursue it.
suomynona
- 245
- 93
@delae632 asked for me to report the bullshit and trolls here, so I did just report you, and btw a few of us realize who you really are so go away you annoying troll!
Tuku
- 161
- 63
And what are you providing but opinion? Journals unrelated to cannabis are leaps and bounds better than opinion and demands. Inferences are the basis of scientific progress.
If you can provides worthwhile links, then do so.
I'm interested in hearing what people consider curing to do on a biochemical basis. As in what is the underlying scientific explanation, the underlying mechanisms at play, that occur when curing? I respect that the OP attempted to explain the processes that occur during drying and why drying quickly helps stop these processes, yet so many people have called it BS without any attempt to explain why other than giving opinions. I would love to hear more discussion of the underlying science on both sides of this topic.
nastiestnate
- 17
- 3
lol... exactly
ill go back to lurking. yall are really retarded
ill go back to lurking. yall are really retarded
Tuku
- 161
- 63
We're retarded because we wish to engage in discussion based on evidence instead of opinion? You said you can provide links, please do. I'm genuinely interested in reading more.
suomynona
- 245
- 93
I reported this nasty nate dipshit as a troll but his posts remain, and my reply got deleted...go figure
- Status
