Vindicated
Well-Known Member
Dry Ice Experiment by GanjaGardener
Article Edited & Republished by Vindicated
Objective: The goal of the experiment is (a) to determine if cannabis can be properly cured and (b) to see if the dry ice method is a viable alternative to traditional air curing. Curing in this context is the process of aging the cannabis plant for long term storage, to prevent mold, and to achieve a desired quality of smoke.
Hypothesis: It is the experimenters belief that drying cannabis will prove to be a quicker and more efficient process than traditional air drying methods.
Equipment: Triple Beam Balance (lab scale), 2.7 lbs of dry ice, ice cooler, & 50.3 grams of Cannabis (wet)
Procedure: The control sample was air dried for 7-10 days. The cannabis material to be tested was placed inside the ice cooler, beside a single solid block of dry ice. The cooler was left open approximately one inch. The plant material was left inside the container for approximately 15 18 hours. It can be inferred, although it was not directly mentioned by the experimenter, that no barrier was used to separate the dry ice from the plant material.
Results: At the end of the curing process some moister remained on the plant material. The experimenter has reason to believe condensation built up shortly after an initial dry period. Evidence of condensation was not provided and would need to be confirmed by repeating the experiment. The excess moister was removed by allowing the plant to air dry for an additional two days. The final results show evidence of even moister removal. The material also appears to have sweated and displays a similar aged appearance. While conducting a non-blind (biased) comparison of the control group verse the experimental group, the experimenter did not notice any difference between the quality of the smoke.
Conclusion: The experiment shows that dry ice curing has the potential to be a viable alternative to traditional air curing. While several mistakes were carried out during the test, most notably the lack of a barrier between the plant material and the dry ice, the results still show that dry ice can quickly remove moister without negatively impacting the aroma, taste, or quality of the smoke. Further testing should be carried out to see if the condensation can be controlled. The objective of similar experiments should attempt to verify these claims. In the event that condensation is present, the experimenter should continue to experiment by adding more dry ice until the material is dried to the desired level.
Documentation:
Source: http://www.gardenscure.com/420/harvesting-drying-storage/129316-dry-ice-drying-2.html
Final Comments: Over the last few days, as my own harvest is coming to an end, I decided to research the dry ice method of curing. I've always been intrigued to try this method. On the surface it makes perfect since to me. NASA has been freeze drying food to save weight and prevent mold for years. The food industry invests heavily in freeze drying and actively promotes it as a method to preserve freshness. Also big on my mind was the thought that the food industry's methods of freeze drying is aimed at keeping food fresh for consumption. While our goal of curing cannabis is more directed at the smokability of the plant.
With that said, believing that dry ice works and getting solid information (let alone evidence) is clearly two different things. In fact, my initial search started on these forums, but the opinions given were so poorly articulated and the statements clearly anecdotal that I quickly abandoned the forums in lieu of Google. What I found not only impressed me, but convinced me that dry ice curing has it's place.
It would be interesting if this experiment is repeated using the scientific method by as many people as possible. The results swayed me enough to give this a try and I hope by reposting this you will be inspired to try this too.
Article Edited & Republished by Vindicated
Objective: The goal of the experiment is (a) to determine if cannabis can be properly cured and (b) to see if the dry ice method is a viable alternative to traditional air curing. Curing in this context is the process of aging the cannabis plant for long term storage, to prevent mold, and to achieve a desired quality of smoke.
Hypothesis: It is the experimenters belief that drying cannabis will prove to be a quicker and more efficient process than traditional air drying methods.
Equipment: Triple Beam Balance (lab scale), 2.7 lbs of dry ice, ice cooler, & 50.3 grams of Cannabis (wet)
Procedure: The control sample was air dried for 7-10 days. The cannabis material to be tested was placed inside the ice cooler, beside a single solid block of dry ice. The cooler was left open approximately one inch. The plant material was left inside the container for approximately 15 18 hours. It can be inferred, although it was not directly mentioned by the experimenter, that no barrier was used to separate the dry ice from the plant material.
Results: At the end of the curing process some moister remained on the plant material. The experimenter has reason to believe condensation built up shortly after an initial dry period. Evidence of condensation was not provided and would need to be confirmed by repeating the experiment. The excess moister was removed by allowing the plant to air dry for an additional two days. The final results show evidence of even moister removal. The material also appears to have sweated and displays a similar aged appearance. While conducting a non-blind (biased) comparison of the control group verse the experimental group, the experimenter did not notice any difference between the quality of the smoke.
Conclusion: The experiment shows that dry ice curing has the potential to be a viable alternative to traditional air curing. While several mistakes were carried out during the test, most notably the lack of a barrier between the plant material and the dry ice, the results still show that dry ice can quickly remove moister without negatively impacting the aroma, taste, or quality of the smoke. Further testing should be carried out to see if the condensation can be controlled. The objective of similar experiments should attempt to verify these claims. In the event that condensation is present, the experimenter should continue to experiment by adding more dry ice until the material is dried to the desired level.
Documentation:
Source: http://www.gardenscure.com/420/harvesting-drying-storage/129316-dry-ice-drying-2.html
Final Comments: Over the last few days, as my own harvest is coming to an end, I decided to research the dry ice method of curing. I've always been intrigued to try this method. On the surface it makes perfect since to me. NASA has been freeze drying food to save weight and prevent mold for years. The food industry invests heavily in freeze drying and actively promotes it as a method to preserve freshness. Also big on my mind was the thought that the food industry's methods of freeze drying is aimed at keeping food fresh for consumption. While our goal of curing cannabis is more directed at the smokability of the plant.
With that said, believing that dry ice works and getting solid information (let alone evidence) is clearly two different things. In fact, my initial search started on these forums, but the opinions given were so poorly articulated and the statements clearly anecdotal that I quickly abandoned the forums in lieu of Google. What I found not only impressed me, but convinced me that dry ice curing has it's place.
It would be interesting if this experiment is repeated using the scientific method by as many people as possible. The results swayed me enough to give this a try and I hope by reposting this you will be inspired to try this too.
