Posted on

El Niño Is Coming — What Every South African Grower Needs to Know

A strong El Niño is forecast to peak this summer in South Africa. Learn what it means for your cannabis grow, how to prepare, and why waiting to plant is the smartest move.
El Niño Is Coming — What Every South African Grower Needs to Know | The Certified
Climate Advisory · Seasonal Planning

We've spent this run on soil, pests, and disease — the things you can manage in your own grow space. This week we're looking at something much bigger than any of us: a very strong El Niño is forecast to shape the entire summer ahead. Here's what it is, what it means for South African growers specifically, and why patience might be the smartest move on the table right now.

Climate Advisory · Seasonal Planning · Water Management

El Niño Is Coming — What Every South African Grower Needs to Know

Spring Day has already come and gone, and plenty of growers have rushed to get seeds and clones in the ground. But the World Meteorological Organisation is forecasting one of the strongest El Niño events in decades, with below-normal rainfall and above-normal heat expected across most of South Africa this summer. Here's what that actually means, and why waiting a little longer might be the wiser call.

The Grower's Connect · · 12 min read
~100% probability El Niño persists through February 2027, per the WMO
+2.6°C peak central Pacific ocean warmth recorded by mid-August
Oct–Jan the window forecasters expect the event to peak in intensity
Below-normal rainfall outlook for most of South Africa, per SAWS
Listen to this article El Niño Is Coming — What Every South African Grower Needs to Know
Audio coming soon — replace this div with your <audio> tag when ready

Every grow season carries some uncertainty. This one carries more than most. The World Meteorological Organisation says forecasts from its Global Producing Centres indicate an "exceptionally high likelihood of nearly 100%" that El Niño will persist through February 2027 — the first time a WMO El Niño update has ever been that unequivocal. Fuelled by exceptionally warm ocean conditions across the tropical Pacific, the event is expected to strengthen further in the coming months, peaking toward the end of this year, with impacts continuing well into 2027.

If you haven't come across El Niño before, or only vaguely know the term from the news, this week is about making sure every grower — hobbyist or commercial — understands exactly what's coming and how to plan around it.

What El Niño Actually Is

El Niño and La Niña are opposite phases of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), one of the most powerful naturally occurring climate patterns on Earth. El Niño itself is characterised by a warming of ocean surface temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. It typically occurs every two to seven years, lasts around nine to twelve months, generally begins developing between March and June, and reaches peak intensity between November and February — though its effects on global temperature can extend well beyond that, often being most pronounced in the year after the event develops.

Importantly, El Niño is a natural climate phenomenon and is not caused by climate change — but it operates on top of a warming planet, which is part of why forecasters are watching this particular event so closely. This year's El Niño developed earlier than usual, and the widely used Niño 3.4 index — which tracks sea-surface temperature anomalies in the region at the heart of the pattern — climbed from an average of +1.5°C above normal in May–July 2026 to weekly readings between +2.2°C and +2.6°C above average by mid-August. Even more striking, subsurface ocean temperatures in some areas were measured at more than 8°C above average during the same window, a sign of just how much heat is banked up and ready to influence the atmosphere in the months ahead.

Why This Is a Genuinely Tougher Season to Plan For

In the agricultural sector, El Niño conditions typically bring below-normal rainfall and high temperatures that can produce dry conditions and heat stress — historically a contributor to crop failure and livestock losses where risk-reduction measures aren't in place. Water restrictions often follow low rainfall and tend to hit irrigation-dependent growers hardest. On top of the direct heat and drought stress, hot conditions during summer are also usually associated with related pest and disease pressure, which means the scouting habits already covered in this series matter even more this season, not less.

Winter rainfall areas have already experienced a shortage moving into spring, and even where typical winter conditions have persisted in summer rainfall regions, forecasters expect that below-normal rainfall and high temperatures will make the transition into summer more difficult than usual this year.

Why There's No Rush to Plant Just Yet

Spring Day has come and gone, and it's a safe bet plenty of growers have already jumped on seeds and clones, on schedule with tradition. But traditions built around a "normal" season don't necessarily hold up against a very strong El Niño year — and the honest truth is that nobody, including the WMO itself, can tell you exactly how severe conditions will be in your specific area until the pattern is further along.

"The strength of an El Niño event alone does not determine how severe its impacts will be in any individual country or region."

That uncertainty cuts both ways — but for a grower without a commercial deadline hanging over the season, it argues strongly for patience rather than urgency. If you're growing purely for yourself, there's genuinely no need to rush a seed or clone into the ground the moment the calendar says spring. Giving it another month, and watching how conditions actually develop through late September and October, costs you very little and could save you from establishing a plant right into the worst of an early, intense heat and dry spell.

Practical Prep for the Season Ahead

Proactive Resilience: Your Garden, Your Control

It is easy to look at climate forecasts, heat maps, and drought warnings and feel entirely at the mercy of the weather. But cannabis is, at its core, a highly adaptable, deeply resilient plant—a weed that has survived extreme climates for millennia. You are not helpless against a harsh summer. The choices you make right now give you massive leverage over how this season unfolds.

By heavily mulching your beds, establishing deep root systems, banking water early, and cultivating a biologically active rhizosphere, you create a localized microclimate that insulates your plants against the worst of the macroclimate. In fact, many master growers argue that controlled drought and heat stress—when managed by an attentive grower—can actually force the plant to produce thicker resins and more complex terpene profiles as a natural defense mechanism. Treat this El Niño not as a disaster waiting to happen, but as a masterclass in reading your garden. The growers who prepare now won’t just survive the heat; they will cultivate stronger, more resilient flowers because of it.

Global El Niño forecast: World Meteorological Organization. El Niño Set to Become Very Strong, Raising Risks of Extreme Weather into 2027. WMO News & Media Centre, September 2026.
South African agricultural advisory: Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Republic of South Africa. Agriculture on El Niño Weather Climate. Media Statement, 2 September 2026.
Posted on

Powdery Mildew — What Every Cannabis Grower Needs to Understand

Two 2025 studies reveal how powdery mildew infects cannabis, why some genetics resist it, and how to fight the fungus without wrecking your living soil.
Powdery Mildew — What Every Cannabis Grower Needs to Understand | The Certified
Grower Fundamentals · Disease Management

We spent last week on rosemary oil and spider mites. This week we're anchoring on the disease every cannabis grower meets sooner or later: powdery mildew. Two 2025 studies — one unpacking the biology of the disease itself, one mapping the first known cannabis-specific resistance gene — give us a real foundation, and they connect straight back to the Korean Natural Farming and FPJ/FFJ ground we've already covered.

Plant Pathology · Cannabis Genetics · Biocontrol

Powdery Mildew — What Every Cannabis Grower Needs to Understand

It's the white dust every grower dreads, and almost everyone gets it eventually. Two 2025 papers — a comprehensive review of powdery mildew biology and a cannabis-specific genetic study — lay out exactly how this fungus invades, why some genetics fight it off, and why the smartest long-term defence looks a lot like the soil biology work you're probably already doing.

The Grower's Connect · · 14 min read
$6.3B estimated annual global economic loss caused by powdery mildew
10,000+ plant species known to be infected by powdery mildew fungi worldwide
70%+ of 510 screened cannabis genotypes showed high susceptibility to PM
90%+ reduction in spore production seen in cannabis with the PM2 resistance gene
Listen to this article Powdery Mildew — What Every Grower Needs to Understand
Audio coming soon — replace this div with your <audio> tag when ready

If you've grown cannabis for more than a season or two, you already know the feeling: a faint dusting of white on a fan leaf that you tell yourself is just pollen or dust, until it isn't. Powdery mildew (PM) is arguably the single most common disease pressure cannabis growers face, indoors or out, and it doesn't discriminate between hobbyists and commercial operations. Globally, powdery mildew fungi are estimated to cause over six billion dollars in agricultural losses every year, across more than ten thousand plant species. In cannabis specifically, it's now understood to be the most prevalent fungal disease in indoor growing operations.

This week we're anchoring on PM properly — not just how to spot it, but how it actually works, why some cannabis genetics fight it off almost entirely while others fold immediately, and why the long-term answer looks less like reaching for a stronger fungicide and more like the soil and microbial work this series keeps circling back to.

How the Infection Actually Happens

Powdery mildew isn't one single organism — it's a large group of related fungi, and the species specifically responsible for most cannabis infections is Golovinomyces ambrosiae (previously classified as G. cichoracearum). Unlike many fungal pathogens, PM is an obligate biotroph — it can only survive on living plant tissue, which is part of why it spreads so readily between plants in a shared grow space.

The infection follows a fairly predictable sequence. A spore lands on a leaf surface and germinates, forming a specialised structure called an appressorium that physically and enzymatically breaches the plant's outer cell wall. Once inside, the fungus develops haustoria — feeding structures that tap directly into host cells to draw out nutrients — while a visible mycelial network spreads across the leaf surface. Within one to two weeks under favourable conditions, the fungus completes its cycle by producing conidiophores, the spore-generating structures responsible for that unmistakable powdery white coating, which then release fresh spores to start the cycle again on neighbouring tissue.

The Conditions That Let It Take Hold

PM favours a fairly specific environmental window, and this is where a grower has the most day-to-day control. High humidity and surface moisture strongly favour spore germination, while poor airflow and dense, heavily shaded canopy create exactly the still, humid micro-climate the fungus wants. Interestingly, PM doesn't need standing water on the leaf the way many other fungal diseases do — elevated humidity alone is often enough.

Conditions That Favour PM

High humidity, poor air circulation, dense or heavily shaded canopy, moderate temperatures, and young, actively growing tissue that hasn't fully hardened off its defences yet.

Conditions That Limit It

Good airflow through the canopy, lower relative humidity, adequate light penetration, and well-nourished plants with a fully induced natural defence response.

Plant nutrition plays a bigger role here than growers often credit. A well-nourished plant mounts a stronger, faster defence response, largely through hormonal signalling — salicylic acid (SA) pathways are central to a plant's fight against biotrophic pathogens like PM, while a separate jasmonic acid/ethylene pathway handles necrotrophic threats. This is precisely why the soil-first approach we keep returning to in this series isn't just about yield — a plant that's genuinely well fed from the root up is measurably better equipped to resist infection in the first place.

Not All Cannabis Is Equally Vulnerable

Here's where things get genuinely exciting for the future of cannabis breeding. Researchers at Aurora Cannabis screened 510 genotypes from their germplasm collection for PM susceptibility, and the results were sobering: more than 70% scored a "disease index" above 50, indicating high susceptibility across the board. But buried in that same population were rare genotypes that resisted infection almost entirely — and the researchers were able to trace that resistance to its genetic source.

Using a technique called bulked-segregant RNA sequencing, they identified a single dominant resistance gene — named PM2 — located on chromosome 9. Plants carrying PM2 didn't just get a little less sick; under microscopy, infected leaves showed a highly localised burst of reactive oxygen species (hydrogen peroxide) right at the point of fungal attack, triggering a hypersensitive response that kills off a tiny patch of the plant's own cells before the fungus can establish itself. The pathogen still lands and tries to penetrate — it just can't get anywhere.

"The plant sacrifices a handful of its own cells at the exact point of attack, and that's enough to stop the fungus from ever completing its life cycle."

The practical outcome was dramatic: genotypes carrying PM2 showed more than a 90% reduction in spore (conidia) production compared to susceptible plants — from an average of over 118 conidiophores per leaf sample down to roughly 5. That's the difference between a plant that shrugs off exposure and one that becomes a spreading source of infection for everything around it.

Why the Industry Is Moving Away from Fungicides Alone

For decades, powdery mildew control has leaned on two tools: resistant cultivars where available, and chemical fungicides everywhere else. But broad chemical use comes with real costs — it drives fungicide-resistant pathogen strains, harms beneficial insects and pollinators, and, critically for growers who've been following this series, degrades the very soil and leaf-surface microbial communities that would otherwise help fight the disease for you.

This is where the research points somewhere genuinely useful: biological control using synergistic combinations of beneficial microbes, particularly Bacillus and Trichoderma species, which compete with PM for space and resources on the leaf surface and can actively trigger the plant's own induced immunity, all while reducing reliance on fungicide.

You Already Have the Tools

Yes, the PM2 genetic resistance gene is incredibly exciting for the future of cannabis breeding, but you don't need to wait for commercial breeders to drop PM2 seed packs to win this fight today. The fundamental biology of Golovinomyces ambrosiae is universally understood: it is a weak pathogen that exploits poor environments and biological vacuums. If you are applying the core principles of regenerative cultivation—building thriving soil biology, feeding the plant through organic inputs rather than salt shocks, brewing your own indigenous microbes, and maintaining tight control over your canopy airflow—you are actively destroying the conditions powdery mildew needs to survive.

You aren't helpless against this fungus, and you don't need to rely solely on chemical fungicides that wreck the rest of your garden's ecology. Your proactive, day-to-day garden management is already your strongest defense. Powdery mildew is a battle fought on multiple fronts—environment, plant nutrition, and microbial ecology—and the growers who treat it that way are the ones who keep it from ever becoming a problem in the first place.

Powdery mildew biology, colonisation, and biocontrol review: Gan, C.-M.; Tang, T.; Zhang, Z.-Y.; Li, M.; Zhao, X.-Q.; Li, S.-Y.; Yan, Y.-W.; Chen, M.-X.; Zhou, X. Unraveling the Intricacies of Powdery Mildew: Insights into Colonization, Plant Defense Mechanisms, and Future Strategies. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2025, 26, 3513.
Cannabis-specific PM2 resistance gene mapping: Seifi, S.; Leckie, K. M.; Giles, I.; O'Brien, T.; MacKenzie, J. O.; Todesco, M.; Rieseberg, L. H.; Baute, G. J.; Celedon, J. M. Mapping and Characterization of a Novel Powdery Mildew Resistance Locus (PM2) in Cannabis sativa L. Frontiers in Plant Science 2025, 16, 1543229.
Posted on

Rosemary Oil vs the Two-Spotted Spider Mite

Rosemary Oil vs. the Two-Spotted Spider Mite — A Grower's Guide
Rosemary Oil vs. the Two-Spotted Spider Mite — A Grower's Guide | The Certified
Grower Fundamentals · Pest Management

Last week was about putting a seed in the ground for the love of it. This week we start arming that plant for the season ahead. First up: the two-spotted spider mite, the single most common pest problem a grower will face, and a genuinely effective natural weapon against it — rosemary oil.

Pest Management · IPM · Natural Acaricides

Rosemary Oil vs. the Two-Spotted Spider Mite

Every grower meets this pest eventually — often before they even know what they're looking at. A 2006 peer-reviewed toxicology study put rosemary essential oil head-to-head against the two-spotted spider mite, and the results explain why the whole oil works better than any single "active ingredient" ever could.

The Grower's Connect · · 11 min read
1,200+ plant species the two-spotted spider mite attacks worldwide
80+ acaricides this mite has evolved resistance to across 60 countries
10–13 ml/L the LC50 of rosemary oil against spider mites, depending on host plant
92–96% mortality from the full ten-constituent oil blend — matching natural rosemary oil
Listen to this article Rosemary Oil vs. the Two-Spotted Spider Mite
Audio coming soon — replace this div with your <audio> tag when ready

If you grow for more than one season, you will meet the two-spotted spider mite. It doesn't matter how clean your setup is or how careful you are — Tetranychus urticae is one of the most widespread and economically damaging pests of fruit, vegetable and ornamental crops on the planet, capable of attacking well over a thousand different plant species. It's tiny, it reproduces fast, and by the time you can see the damage with the naked eye, the infestation is usually already established. Getting ahead of it is less about finding the perfect chemical and more about understanding how the pest actually works — and having a genuinely effective tool in your rotation that doesn't wreck the rest of your garden's biology while you use it.

That's where this week's fundamental comes in. A 2006 study published in Pest Management Science put rosemary essential oil through rigorous laboratory toxicology testing against two-spotted spider mites, and the findings are exactly the kind of foundation every grower should have going into the season — not just "rosemary oil works," but a clear picture of why it works, and what that means for how you should actually use it.

Know Your Enemy: What You're Actually Dealing With

Spider mites belong to the family Tetranychidae, and they're not insects at all — adult mites have eight legs and piercing, sucking mouthparts, making them closer relatives of spiders and ticks. They're prolific web-spinners, which is where the name comes from, and they feed on a huge range of host plants across many different plant families. Under good conditions — warm temperatures, low humidity — a mite can go from egg to reproducing adult in under a week, which is exactly why populations can explode from "barely noticeable" to "serious problem" in a matter of days.

Catching It Early: How to Actually Scout for Mites

Frequent, careful inspection is the difference between an easy fix and an expensive one. Mites typically feed on the undersides of leaves, so that's where to look first, and a magnifying hand lens (10x) makes them far easier to spot. The classic warning sign is a fine, silvery stippling or speckling across the upper leaf surface — that's the visible result of mites puncturing individual plant cells to feed. Fine, thread-like webbing is another giveaway, particularly on heavier infestations. One useful trick for plants with fine foliage: slap a stem firmly against a light-coloured surface, like a sheet of white paper. If mites are present, you'll see small, moving spots.

The Study: Testing Rosemary Oil Against Spider Mites

Researchers at the University of British Columbia tested pure Rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary) essential oil against two separately reared colonies of two-spotted spider mites — one strain adapted to feeding on bean plants, the other on tomato. Using a leaf-disc bioassay, they painted precise concentrations of the oil onto leaf discs, introduced adult female mites, and measured mortality after 24 hours.

Why the Whole Oil Beats Any Single Ingredient

Here's the finding that should change how you think about "natural" pest control. When the researchers tested rosemary oil's ten major constituents individually, only two — 1,8-cineole and α-pinene — were consistently, strongly toxic to spider mites on their own. Several others were only mildly toxic, and a handful showed almost no toxicity in isolation at all. If you stopped there, the obvious move would be to extract 1,8-cineole and α-pinene and skip the rest.

But that's not what the data actually supports. When the researchers combined only the "active" constituents into a blend, its toxicity was lower than the natural whole oil. It was only when they added the "inactive" constituents back in — the ones that killed essentially nothing on their own — that the blend's toxicity climbed back up to match pure rosemary oil. The inactive compounds weren't doing nothing. They were quietly amplifying the active ones.

"The constituents that killed nothing by themselves turned out to be necessary. Remove them, and the 'active' ingredients alone couldn't do the whole oil's job."

Bean-Strain Mites

Only 1,8-cineole (88% mortality) and α-pinene (32%) were individually significant. Seven of the ten constituents were essentially non-toxic on their own — yet all ten together matched the natural oil.

Tomato-Strain Mites

α-Pinene (72%) and 1,8-cineole (80%) were highly toxic; five more constituents were moderately toxic. Only three (camphor, camphene, p-cymene) contributed nothing individually.

The researchers also found that mites reared on different host plants responded differently to the same compounds — several constituents that did nothing to bean-fed mites were meaningfully toxic to tomato-fed mites. That's a reminder that "the mite" isn't a single uniform target; the plant it's been feeding on can shift its sensitivity to a given treatment.

Rosemary Oil in the Real World

This isn't just a lab curiosity. Rosemary oil already has a place in commercial pest management — it features in natural agricultural remedies registered under South Africa's Act 36 of 1947 (and equivalent global organic standards), alongside other botanical oils, soaps, and sulfur-based products. These are used specifically because they don't carry the resistance and beneficial-insect destruction problems that synthetic, broad-spectrum chemicals do.

Why Resistance Makes This More Than a Nice-to-Have

Two-spotted spider mites have evolved resistance to more than 80 different acaricides in over 60 countries, and that resistance tends to develop fastest against products built around a single active compound. This is exactly where a whole essential oil has a structural advantage: because rosemary oil's efficacy depends on a synergistic blend rather than one isolated molecule, it's a much harder target for a mite population to evolve around all at once. The same principle has been documented elsewhere — aphids developed resistance to purified azadirachtin, the primary active compound in neem oil, but not to whole neem seed extract containing that same compound alongside its natural companions.

Beyond the Bean and Tomato

Yes, this study tested the two-spotted spider mite on bean and tomato plants, not cannabis. But here is the reality: Tetranychus urticae is the exact same pest tearing through cannabis canopies worldwide. Spider mite biology doesn't change just because the bug crossed the fence into your grow room. As cannabis growers, we can't afford to ignore rigorous agricultural science just because the test crop was a vegetable. The mechanics of how rosemary oil suffocates and poisons this mite, and why the whole oil prevents resistance far better than single compounds, applies directly to your garden. You will encounter the spider mite. When you do, this data proves you have a highly effective, natural, synergistic weapon ready to deploy.

Rosemary oil toxicology study: Miresmailli, S.; Bradbury, R.; Isman, M. B. Comparative Toxicity of Rosmarinus officinalis L. Essential Oil and Blends of Its Major Constituents Against Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) on Two Different Host Plants. Pest Management Science 2006, 62, 366–371.
Mite biology, scouting, and miticide reference data: Stamps, R. H.; Osborne, L. S. Selected Miticides for Use on Ornamental Plants. ENH1118, University of Florida IFAS Extension, Environmental Horticulture Department. Revised January 2013.
Posted on

Grow For the Love of It: Reclaiming Cannabis Culture This Season

Eight years after the ConCourt ruling, it's time to remember why we started growing in the first place — not to supply anyone, just for the love of the plant.
Grow For the Love of It — Reclaiming Cannabis Culture This Season | The Certified
Culture · Community

We've spent this whole run underground — soil biology, root chemistry, rhizosphere bacteria. All useful, all real. But it's almost seed season, and there's a bigger question worth asking before any of that matters: why are you growing at all? This week we put the microscope down and talk about the actual reason most of us started doing this in the first place.

Grower Culture · Home Grow · Seed Season

Grow For the Love of It — Put a Seed in the Ground This Season

It's almost planting time again. Eight years after the Constitutional Court told the state to get out of our gardens, somewhere along the way "growing your own" turned into "running a small business." This season, let's put that down. Grow something because the plant deserves it, and so do you.

The Grower's Connect · · 9 min read
8 years since the Constitutional Court protected your right to grow and use cannabis privately
0 buyers you need lined up before you drop a single seed in the ground this year
2018 the year growing in your backyard just to see what happened was still completely normal
1,854+ strains catalogued on Strainpedia alone — enough reason to pick one just for the name
Listen to this article Grow For the Love of It
Audio coming soon — replace this div with your <audio> tag when ready

Think back to 2018 and 2019, if you were around for it. Someone in your circle had a few pots on a balcony or a corner of the yard they'd half-cleared for the occasion. Nobody was calibrating yield per watt. Nobody was pricing out a harvest before the seed even cracked. You planted something because a mate handed you a cutting, or because you found a pack of seeds in a drawer, or because the ConCourt had just told the whole country that growing your own plant in your own home was, finally, nobody else's business. It was messy, it was experimental, half of it hermied or got eaten by something, and none of that mattered. You were growing because it was fun, because it was yours, and because — after decades of it being illegal to even try — you finally could.

Eight years on, a lot of that spirit has quietly been replaced by spreadsheets. Somewhere between the ruling and now, "I grow cannabis" started needing a follow-up sentence: for who, for how much, is it legit, can you get me some. Home growers started calling themselves cultivators. Cultivators started calling themselves suppliers. And suppliers started feeling like every plant in the garden had a job to do before it was even a seedling. None of that is wrong — there are real growers doing real, serious work, building genuine small businesses out of a plant they love, and that deserves respect. But it became the default expectation for everyone, including the person who just wants a few plants in a pot for themselves. If you grow, apparently, you supply. And if you're not supplying, what's the point?

The Point Was Never the Supply Chain

Here's the reminder this post exists to make: the point was never the supply chain. The 2018 ruling wasn't a business licence. It was the state stepping back and saying an adult growing cannabis for their own private use, in their own home, is a matter of personal freedom — not a crime, and not a commercial application waiting to happen. That's a genuinely rare thing to have won, and it's worth using it exactly as it was intended: to grow something, in your own space, for yourself, because you want to.

"You don't owe anyone a harvest. The plant doesn't care if you're a supplier — it just wants water, light, and someone paying attention."

There is a real, specific joy in growing a plant for no reason beyond wanting to watch it grow. Cannabis rewards that kind of attention more than almost anything else you could put in the ground — it changes visibly week to week, it tells you when it's happy and when it isn't, and by the time you're smoking something you grew from a seed with your own hands, "supply" is the last thing on your mind. That feeling is exactly what got buried under everyone's side hustle, and it's exactly what this season is for reclaiming.

Give Yourself Permission Again

You're allowed to grow one plant and let it be entirely, uselessly, wonderfully just yours. You're allowed to grow a strain because the name made you laugh, or because the breeder's photo looked incredible, or because you smoked it once at a festival in 2019 and never forgot it. You're allowed to grow something and give the whole harvest away to friends instead of selling a gram of it. None of that needs a business case. It needs a pot, some soil, and the seed itself.

Where to Actually Find Something Exciting to Plant

Part of what made 2018/2019 growing so much fun was the sheer novelty of choice — suddenly you could just order seeds and see what showed up. That's still true, arguably more true than ever. Trophy Seeds carries sealed breeder packs from international genetics houses alongside proudly South African classics, so there's real range between old-school landrace-style strains and the newer exotic hybrids everyone's talking about. If you want a wider look at what's trending globally right now, Strainpedia's top strains list tracks reader interest across thousands of cultivars — a genuinely fun rabbit hole if you've got twenty minutes and no plan.

This Season, Just Plant Something

Seed season doesn't wait for you to have a plan. The window is short, the weather's about to turn, and the best time to get something in the ground is before you've talked yourself into needing a reason. So here's your reason, if you need one: because eight years ago the country said you could, because the plant is worth getting to know on its own terms, and because there is nothing quite like the first time a seed you planted with your own hands turns into something you can hold, smell, and share. Go pick something that excites you. Put it in the ground. Let this season be about the plant again.

Seed inspiration browsing: Trophy Seeds — sealed breeder packs and South African classics. Strainpedia's Top Weed Strains — reader-ranked cultivars from around the world.
Legal context: This post reflects the general, publicly known outcome of the 2018 Constitutional Court ruling on private cannabis use and cultivation in South Africa. It's cultural context, not legal advice — speak to a qualified professional for guidance on your own situation.
Posted on

The Web Beneath the Roots — What Actually Happens in Living Soil

ow a mycorrhizal fungus reshapes the bacteria living around a root — and what that means for cannabis living soil.
The Web Beneath the Roots — Going Deeper Into Living Soil | The Certified
Soil Biology · Living Soil

We introduced the soil food web a while back — bacteria, archaea, fungi, protists, nematodes, all of it. Last week we went underground again, straight into the root itself, and found real medicine hiding there. This week we zoom back out one level, to the ground the root actually lives in, and look at a study that captures something living soil growers talk about constantly but rarely see measured: a mycorrhizal fungus walks into a root zone, and the bacterial neighborhood changes because of it.

Soil Biology · Mycorrhizal Fungi · Rhizosphere Ecology

The Web Beneath the Roots — What Actually Happens in Living Soil

"Feed the soil, not the plant" is the mantra. But what does that actually look like at the microbial level? A 1984 grassland study tracked exactly what happens to the bacteria living around a root once a mycorrhizal fungus moves in — and the answer is more interesting, and more specific, than "everything grows more."

The Grower's Connect · · 13 min read
5 groups bacteria, archaea, fungi, protists, and nematodes make up the core cast of the soil food web
5.5% maximum root length the mycorrhizal fungus colonized — still enough to shift the bacteria around it
3 of 5 comparison methods where mycorrhizal colonization significantly boosted one specific rhizosphere bacterium
r = 0.53 correlation between mycorrhizal colonization and that bacterium's population, P = 0.01
Listen to this article The Web Beneath the Roots
Audio coming soon — replace this div with your <audio> tag when ready

Every grower who's committed to living soil already believes something like this: the soil isn't an inert bag of nutrients, it's a community, and the health of your plant depends on the health of that community. It's a good instinct, and it's the whole premise of this series. But "community" is a word that can quietly do a lot of hand-waving. It's easy to nod along with "feed the soil, not the plant" without ever seeing what that community is actually doing to itself, in real numbers, while your roots sit in the middle of it.

That's what makes an old, unglamorous study out of Colorado State University worth pulling back out. It isn't about cannabis, and it isn't recent — it was published in 1984, in a grassland soil, on a grass species most growers have never heard of. But it did something most soil-biology writing doesn't: it isolated one single relationship inside the soil food web — a mycorrhizal fungus and the bacteria living in its immediate neighborhood — and simply measured what happened. No hand-waving. Counted colonies, on plates, compared with statistics. That kind of unglamorous, methodical measurement is exactly what makes the more general "soil food web" story feel less like philosophy and more like biology you can build a growing method around.

A Quick Refresher: Who's Actually Down There

Before going deeper, it's worth restating the cast, because the rest of this piece leans on all of them. The soil food web is built on primary decomposers — bacteria and archaea — that break down organic material and release the nutrients locked inside it. Bacteria in particular drive nitrogen fixation, most famously through the Rhizobia species that trade fixed nitrogen for sugar inside legume root nodules, and they compete aggressively with pathogens for the same space and food. Fungi split into two working groups: mycorrhizal fungi, which form direct symbiotic partnerships with roots and extend a plant's effective reach for water and phosphorus far beyond what the root itself could access, and saprophytic fungi, which decompose dead organic matter and physically bind soil particles together with their mycelium. Above them, protists graze on bacteria and release the nitrogen they contain as plant-available ammonium, while nematodes feed on bacteria, fungi, other nematodes, or roots depending on the species, and in doing so regulate the size of every population beneath them.

On paper, this reads like a food chain. In practice, it behaves more like an economy — thousands of overlapping transactions happening in the thin films of water around every soil particle, all of it ultimately funded by whatever the plant's roots are putting into the ground. And that's the part this week's study actually gets inside of.

The Study: What Happens When a Fungus Moves Into the Root Zone

Researchers R. N. Ames, C. P. P. Reid, and E. R. Ingham — yes, that Ingham, the same microbiologist whose work popularized the term "soil food web" in the first place — grew blue grama grass in sandy, nutrient-poor soil collected from a Colorado grassland. Half the plants were inoculated with Glomus mosseae, a vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungus, at transplant. The other half were grown exactly the same way, without the fungus. Both groups had the same five species of naturally occurring rhizosphere bacteria inoculated into their soil from the start, so every plant began with an identical microbial starting lineup.

Sixty days later, the researchers harvested everything and counted. They measured bacterial populations in the soil that fell away from the roots easily — the "non-rhizosphere" soil — and separately in the soil that clung tightly to the root surface, the true rhizosphere zone. They also measured how much of each root system the mycorrhizal fungus had actually colonized, and cross-checked all of it against root length, root branching, and shoot growth.

Non-Rhizosphere Soil

Soil that fell away from the root easily during handling — the general soil body, still influenced by the plant but not in direct root contact.

Rhizosphere Soil

Soil still clinging to the root surface after gentle shaking — the immediate zone shaped directly by root exudates and root-surface chemistry.

The distinction matters more than it sounds like it should. The rhizosphere is a genuinely different biological neighborhood from the soil a few millimetres further out — a definite zone, as the researchers put it, existing as little as two to four millimetres from the root surface. If a mycorrhizal fungus changes anything about bacterial life, this is where you'd expect to see it first.

The Fungus Barely Colonized the Root — And Still Changed the Neighborhood

Here's the detail that should reframe how growers think about mycorrhizal inoculation: colonization of the root system by G. mosseae topped out at only 5.5% of the lateral root length measured. This wasn't a case of the fungus taking over the root system and obviously dominating its biology. It was a light, partial colonization — and it was still enough to produce measurable, statistically significant shifts in the surrounding bacterial community.

Not More Bacteria — Different Bacteria

The most common assumption about "living soil" is that more biological activity is uniformly better — more bacteria, more fungi, more of everything, all the time. This study complicates that picture in a useful way. Regardless of which measurement basis the researchers used, one bacterial species — a fluorescent, oxidase-positive Pseudomonas-type isolate labelled CB11 — increased significantly in the rhizosphere of mycorrhizal plants compared with non-mycorrhizal ones, in three of the five comparison methods tested. Its numbers correlated with how much of the root system was mycorrhizal, and separately with how many mycorrhizal lateral roots existed.

That last point is the one worth sitting with. It isn't just that individual bacterial populations moved up or down. The relationships between different bacteria changed depending on whether a mycorrhizal fungus was present at all. Two species that behaved independently of each other in ordinary soil started behaving as a pair once the fungus arrived. That's not a change in quantity. That's a change in the structure of the community itself — which is precisely the kind of thing the term "soil food web" is trying to describe, and precisely the kind of thing that's nearly impossible to see without an experiment built to isolate it.

"The mycorrhizal fungus didn't just add another organism to the soil. It rewired which bacteria were connected to which — the kind of shift you'd never catch by counting biomass alone."

Root Exudates: The Currency Nobody Sees

The researchers' own explanation for these shifts centers on root exudation — the sugars, amino acids, and other compounds a root leaks into the soil around it, which serve as the primary food source for much of the rhizosphere's bacterial life. The working theory is that mycorrhizal colonization changes what and how much a root exudes, which in turn changes which bacteria can thrive nearby. It's a plausible mechanism, and it lines up with earlier work cited in the paper showing reduced sugar and amino acid content in root exudates from mycorrhizal plants compared with non-mycorrhizal controls of a different species.

But the authors are honest that this raises as much as it resolves. If mycorrhiza formation generally reduces root exudation, why would specific exudate-dependent bacteria like CB11 increase rather than decrease around mycorrhizal roots? Their answer, and ours: the soil food web doesn't run on a single tap that turns uniformly up or down. It's plausible the fungus is changing the exudate mixture rather than simply throttling its volume — favouring compounds that specific bacteria prefer, while starving out others. Nobody has measured that directly yet. It's a genuinely open question, which is a more honest place to land than pretending the mechanism is settled.

Why This Should Matter for Cannabis Growers Specifically

Cannabis forms its own arbuscular mycorrhizal relationships, and living-soil cultivation leans on that fact constantly — mycorrhizal inoculants are a staple ingredient in most living soil mixes and no-till beds. What this study adds isn't a claim about cannabis directly; blue grama grass and sandy Colorado rangeland soil are a long way from a cannabis root ball in a fabric pot. What it adds is a concrete, measured example of the mechanism living soil growers are actually relying on when they inoculate with mycorrhizal fungi at all: the fungus isn't just a nutrient-delivery shortcut for the plant. It's an organism that reaches into the surrounding bacterial community and reorganizes it — promoting some populations, suppressing others, and creating new relationships between bacterial species that didn't exist before it arrived.

The Honest Limitations

This is a forty-year-old study on a wild grass species, grown in a greenhouse pot for sixty days, in sandy Colorado rangeland soil with very low native nutrient levels. None of that is cannabis, none of it is a living soil bed, and none of it is a full growing season. The correlations reported — including the r = 0.53 relationship between CB11 and mycorrhizal colonization — are correlations, not proof that the fungus directly caused the bacterial shift; the researchers themselves note that the mechanism connecting the two remains genuinely unclear. Counts of one inoculated bacterial species, an Azotobacter, couldn't be reliably measured at all and were dropped from the analysis. And critically, results changed depending on how the data were expressed — per gram of rhizosphere soil, per gram of whole root, per gram of lateral root, per centimetre of lateral root, or per number of root branches all told a slightly different statistical story, which the authors themselves flag as a problem still unresolved in this field: there's no agreed-upon standard for how to measure a rhizosphere population in the first place.

None of that erases the value of what was shown. This remains one of the few studies that isolated a single mycorrhizal fungus-bacteria interaction cleanly enough to put numbers on it, rather than just observing that "biology was different" between treatments. For a series that keeps circling back to the same idea — that soil is a web of relationships, not a stack of independent ingredients — this is what that idea looks like in raw data, decades before "living soil" was a marketing term.

Mycorrhizal fungus and rhizosphere bacteria interaction: Ames, R. N.; Reid, C. P. P.; Ingham, E. R. Rhizosphere Bacterial Population Responses to Root Colonization by a Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus. New Phytologist 1984, 96, 555–563. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Foundational soil food web framing: Concept popularised by Dr Elaine Ingham and drawn from Jeff Lowenfels' Teaming with Microbes, as introduced in our earlier post, "What is the Soil Food Web?"
Posted on

Underground Medicine: What the Root Was Doing the Whole Time

Discover how two new studies prove that cannabis roots carry powerful, non-psychoactive anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving chemistry.
Underground Medicine — What Two 2025 Studies Found Hiding in the Cannabis Root | The Certified
Root Chemistry · Pharmacology

We've spent this cultivation arc underground — cover crops, compost timing, manure ratios, and what all of it does to the rhizosphere. This week we go one step further and look at the root itself, not just what it pulls in from the soil. Two separate 2025 studies tested cannabis root extract directly, in living pain models and in human immune cells, and both came back with the same underlying message: the part almost everyone throws away or burns has its own medicine.

Root Chemistry · Endocannabinoid System · Biotechnology · Research

Underground Medicine — What the Root Was Doing the Whole Time

Growers have suspected it for centuries and mostly composted it anyway. Two new 2025 studies — one on field-grown root extract in rodent pain models, one on lab-cultured root extract in human immune cells — now give that old instinct a data trail. Here's what the science found, and what it should change about how you treat your root zone.

The Grower's Connect · · 15 min read
100% vs 0% two-week survival after acute pain induction — high-dose root extract vs untreated
On par with diclofenac root extract's anti-inflammatory effect in a standard paw-edema pain model
1 of 3 solvents extraction methods that didn't kill immune cells outright in lab testing
Root > Leaf lab-grown root extract outperformed leaf extract at suppressing inflammatory signalling
Listen to this article Underground Medicine
Audio coming soon — replace this div with your <audio> tag when ready

Every harvest ends the same way for most growers: the flower goes to the drying rack, the fan leaves go to the compost, the stalk gets chopped, and the root ball — the thing that spent the entire season doing the actual work of building the plant — gets pulled, shaken off, and either binned, burned, or tilled back under. Ask around and you'll find growers who half-suspect there's something in there worth keeping. Old-world hemp and cannabis traditions certainly thought so; root preparations for pain, fever, and joint complaints show up across centuries of folk medicine, long before anyone knew what a cannabinoid receptor was. But without trace THC or CBD to point to, the root has mostly stayed folklore — a thing growers feel is probably useful, without much reason to act on the feeling.

Two studies published in 2025 give that instinct a real foundation. Neither one is about the flower. Both are about the root — one grown conventionally in the field and extracted with ethyl acetate, tested directly in mice and rats dealing with real, induced pain and inflammation; the other grown as lab-cultured adventitious root tissue and extracted with methanol, tested against human dendritic cells and T cells, the immune system's own inflammatory machinery. Different labs, different countries, different extraction chemistry, different biological systems — and yet both landed on the same conclusion from two different directions: the root carries its own independent, non-psychoactive pharmacology, and it's strong enough to measure against real pharmaceutical comparators.

The Root That Kept Mice Alive

The first study, out of Dongguk University's College of Korean Medicine, took dried root from Korean-grown Cannabis sativa, extracted it in 70% ethanol, and fractionated it down to the ethyl acetate layer — the fraction their earlier work had already flagged as the most anti-inflammatory of the bunch. They called it CSREA, and they ran it through three classic pain-and-inflammation models: a formalin injection that produces a sharp early pain response followed by a slower inflammatory one, an acetic-acid "writhing" test used across decades of analgesic research, and a carrageenan-induced paw-swelling model in rats, the standard test for how well something controls acute inflammation.

Mice pre-treated with the higher dose of root extract showed a significantly smaller pain response than untreated mice in both the early, nerve-driven phase and the later, inflammation-driven phase of the formalin test — and in the later phase, it outperformed diclofenac, the pharmaceutical NSAID used as the study's positive control. In the paw-edema model, the root extract suppressed swelling and redness at a level the researchers described as dose-dependent and comparable to diclofenac. But the number that actually stops you mid-scroll is the survival data.

That's not a subtle trend line in a bar graph. That's every animal in the high-dose root-extract group making it through, in a model where every untreated animal did not, and where the standard pharmaceutical treatment saved fewer than half. The researchers were careful to frame this as one dataset from one lab, not a therapeutic claim for humans — and so are we — but it's precisely the kind of result that explains why "the root does something" survived as folk knowledge for this long.

How It Works: The Root Talks to Your Endocannabinoid System

Mechanism is where this gets genuinely interesting for anyone who's been following our endocannabinoid-system coverage. The Dongguk team ran parallel experiments in retinoic-acid-differentiated neuronal cells and found that the root extract was doing something specific: rebalancing the ratio between the two main cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, back toward a healthier baseline, while simultaneously down-regulating FAAH and MAGL — the two enzymes responsible for breaking down your body's own natural endocannabinoids.

"Less enzyme breaking the signal down means more of your own endocannabinoid tone left standing — the root doesn't add cannabinoids, it protects the ones your body already makes."

The same cells showed something else worth flagging for anyone thinking about neuropathic pain specifically: three genes tied directly to pain signalling — a sodium channel called Nav1.7, an acid-sensing channel called ASIC1A, and a substance-P receptor called TACR1 — were all elevated under the stressed cell state, and all significantly reduced by root extract treatment at the higher dose. This is a root with trace cannabinoid content acting on the exact molecular machinery that determines how much pain a nerve cell transmits in the first place.

The Second Study: Roots Grown in a Lab, Same Underlying Story

The second paper comes from Korea's Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology and takes a completely different route to the root. Instead of digging up field-grown plants, the team induced adventitious roots — a lab-cultured root tissue grown from leaf cuttings under sterile, controlled conditions, a technique already used across the medicinal plant world to produce consistent, reproducible metabolite profiles without the variability of open-field growing. They extracted this lab-grown root tissue three ways — hexane, chloroform, and methanol — and tested each against bone-marrow-derived dendritic cells, the immune system's first responders, and against T cells, the cells dendritic cells activate downstream.

The first finding is one every extractor should sit with: solvent choice wasn't a minor detail, it was the difference between medicine and toxin.

Hexane & Chloroform Extracts

Both induced measurable necrotic and apoptotic cell death in immune cells at concentrations as low as 10 micrograms per millilitre, worsening sharply at higher doses. Where they did suppress inflammatory cytokines, they simultaneously increased IL-1β — the opposite of what you want from an anti-inflammatory.

Methanol Extract

Showed no cytotoxicity at any tested concentration, and delivered broad-spectrum suppression of every inflammatory cytokine measured — including IL-1β, the one the other two solvents couldn't touch — with the effect strengthening as the dose increased.

From there, the methanol root extract kept delivering. Under immune-triggering conditions, it held dendritic cells in an immature, non-inflammatory state — suppressing the surface markers that signal "fully activated," restoring the antigen-uptake ability that normally shuts off once a dendritic cell matures, and reducing the cell's ability to actually present antigens to T cells in the first place.

Root Beat Leaf — In Its Own Study

Why Your Root Zone Now Carries More Weight

This is where the two root studies connect directly back to what we covered a few weeks ago on manure sourcing and heavy metal mobility. Neither of these papers tested how soil practices change root phytochemistry — that link hasn't been measured yet, and we're not going to pretend it has. But the underlying biology makes the connection hard to ignore.

In other words: the soil stewardship this series has been building toward — knowing your manure source, testing compost maturity instead of guessing, favouring cover cropping over aggressive tillage — was always going to matter for flower quality. Now it matters for a second harvestable tissue too, and that tissue is the one organ built specifically to absorb whatever is in the ground beneath it.

What This Means for Your Next Harvest

The Honest Limitations

Both studies were preventative rather than therapeutic in design — the root extract went in before the pain or inflammation was induced, which is standard for early-stage screening but doesn't map directly onto treating pain that's already established. Dosing in the pain study wasn't matched to diclofenac on an equipotent basis, so "on par with" and "outperformed" describe the doses actually tested, not a settled comparison of maximum effectiveness. The mechanism work used a differentiated neuroblastoma cell line, not primary neurons, over a six-hour treatment window. And the adventitious root system in the second study is lab-cultured from leaf tissue under sterile conditions — genetically and metabolically stable by design, but not the same thing as a root pulled from a field-grown plant, so its chemistry may not map one-to-one onto what you'd actually harvest from your own root zone. Group sizes were modest, and researchers in both studies knew which animals or cells received which treatment throughout, so blinding wasn't part of either design.

None of that erases the core finding. Two independent teams, working with different extraction chemistry in different biological systems, both found real, measurable, mechanistically explainable activity in a plant organ most growers have never thought to test. That's not proof the root belongs in your medicine cabinet tomorrow — but it's more than enough reason to stop treating it as waste.

Field-grown root extract, pain and inflammation: Jang, S.-Y.; Jin, H.-L.; Yu, G.-R.; Lim, D.-W.; Park, W.-H. Cannabis sativa Root Extract Exerts Anti-Nociceptive and Anti-Inflammatory Effects via Endocannabinoid Pathway Modulation In Vivo and In Vitro. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 8863. doi:10.3390/ijms26188863 — College of Korean Medicine, Dongguk University, Republic of Korea.
Lab-cultured adventitious root extract, immune cells: Park, S.H.; Han, J.M.; Kim, Y.H.; Lee, H.J.; Ryu, Y.B.; Ryu, H.W.; Jeong, J.C.; Oh, S.M.; Kim, W.S. Biotechnological Potential of Cannabis sativa Adventitious Roots for Producing Immunomodulatory and Anti-Inflammatory Bioactive Compounds. Scientific Reports 2025, 15, 30904. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-16130-1 — Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Republic of Korea.
Posted on

The Compost Clock

The Compost Clock
The Compost Clock — Manure Timing & Blends for Cannabis | The Certified
Cultivation Science · Composting

Continuing our cultivation science arc — last week we looked at how cover cropping versus tillage reshapes cannabinoid and terpene profiles. This week we go one layer deeper: what's actually going into that soil, and how long it needs before it's ready. We're bringing together three separate studies — on compost maturation timing, combined organic-and-inorganic fertilization in hemp, and manure's effect on heavy metal mobility — and reporting back where they agree.

Cultivation Science · Soil Health · Composting · Research

The Compost Clock — What the Data Actually Says

Growers love mixing raw manures and stretching synthetic fertiliser with organic inputs. Three studies — on compost timing, combined organic-inorganic feeding, and manure-driven heavy metal mobility — show it can genuinely work. But maturity isn't optional, ratio isn't cosmetic, and manure source carries real consequences.

The Grower's Connect · · 14 min read
30 days to full compost maturity under the best-performing manure ratio
101% vs 61% germination index at day 30 — best manure ratio vs the one that failed to mature
≈0% growth gain from raw, uncomposted digestate vs a properly composted blend
+170% cannabinoid yield from the best organic-plus-reduced-mineral blends
Listen to this article The Compost Clock
Audio coming soon

Ask ten growers what "the compost is ready" means and you'll get ten different answers. Some go by smell. Some go by colour. Some go by a date circled on a calendar three or four weeks after the pile went down. Almost none of them are testing for it directly, and almost none of them are thinking carefully about what manure they used to build the pile in the first place.

That gap — between compost-by-feel and compost-by-data — is where this week's reading sits. We pulled together three studies that, between them, cover the whole chain a grower actually cares about: how long composted manure takes to stop being immature and start being safe, what happens to plant growth and cannabinoid chemistry when you combine organic inputs with a reduced rate of synthetic fertiliser, and — the part almost nobody talks about — what manure application does to heavy metal mobility in soil, given that cannabis itself is an unusually efficient metal accumulator. None of the three studies used identical crops or conditions, so we're not stitching them into one seamless story. But where they line up, the agreement is worth taking seriously, and where they diverge, that's useful information too.

How Long Does Compost Actually Take?

A 2023 study out of Anhui University of Science and Technology in China set out to answer this with real numbers. Researchers composted wheat straw with pig manure or cow manure at 20%, 30%, and 40% ratios, plus a microbial inoculant, and tracked the pile daily for thirty days — temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, nitrogen forms, and a seed germination index, the standard lab proxy for whether a compost is mature enough to stop harming plants.

Under the best-performing ratio in this study — 40% cow manure to 60% wheat straw — the germination index reached 101% by day thirty, comfortably past the "fully mature" threshold. That treatment also showed the fastest organic matter breakdown and the best nitrogen and phosphorus retention of any group tested. Thirty days, with turning every two to three days, was enough to get there.

"The calendar date isn't the test. The germination index is the test — and one manure ratio in this study never crossed the finish line by day thirty."

Manure Ratio Matters More Than Manure Amount

Here's the part growers mixing raw manures need to sit with: not all manure-to-straw ratios matured at the same rate, and more manure was not automatically better. The treatment using 40% pig manure was the standout underperformer across the board.

Cow Manure — Scales Well

Organic matter degradation rate and nitrogen/phosphorus retention both improved as the cow manure ratio increased, peaking at 40%. The 30% and 40% cow manure treatments were the two best performers overall on the study's combined maturity score.

Pig Manure — Doesn't

At 40% pig manure, the pile's germination index actually fell below its pre-composting starting point, ending at 61% by day thirty — the only treatment that failed to reach full maturity. The researchers concluded excess pig manure actively inhibited pile decomposition rather than accelerating it.

The overall ranking, using the study's combined "how decomposed is this pile" score across nine indicators: 40% cow manure came out on top, followed by 30% cow manure, then the unamended straw-only control, then the lower pig manure ratios, with 40% pig manure dead last — worse than doing nothing at all. If you're building your own manure blend this spring, that's a concrete, tested reason to lean toward cow manure over pig manure when pushing ratios higher, and to be cautious about assuming "more manure, more nutrients, better compost" holds in a straight line.

What Happens When You Skip the Cure

The composting study above is about wheat straw, not cannabis directly. But a separate 2025 field trial on industrial hemp, run by Italy's Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, gives a striking real-world echo of the same lesson — using an actual hemp crop.

Researchers tested nine fertility treatments on field-grown hemp: no fertiliser, full synthetic NPK, six different composted blends of solid digestate with cardoon waste or spent mushroom substrate, and — critically — the same solid digestate used raw, uncomposted, all paired with half the normal synthetic nitrogen rate. Every composted blend except one modest underperformer produced meaningfully more plant growth and phytochemical accumulation than the unfertilised control. The raw digestate did not.

Put plainly: two organic inputs went into the same field at the same nutrient rate, and only one of them had been given time to mature. The one that hadn't performed almost identically to no fertiliser at all. That's the composting study's warning, showing up independently in an entirely different crop, on an entirely different continent.

The Organic-Plus-Reduced-Synthetic Combo That Actually Worked

The hemp trial's more encouraging finding is the one growers asking about cost-effectiveness will want: replacing half the synthetic nitrogen rate with a well-matured compost did not come at the expense of growth or chemistry — for the right blends, it matched or beat full-rate synthetic fertiliser.

The Heavy Metal Caveat Almost Nobody Talks About

Here's the piece that tends to get skipped when growers discuss manure blends purely in terms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium: manure doesn't only deliver nutrients. If the manure — or the soil it's going into — carries any heavy metal load, cannabis is unusually good at pulling it into a more available, more uptake-ready form.

A 2012 Iranian study tested this directly on a lead- and cadmium-contaminated soil, treating it with cow manure, poultry manure, and their water extracts, then growing cannabis in it for eight weeks. This is a more extreme scenario than most growers will face — the soil was deliberately built from mine-contaminated material — but the directional findings are worth knowing.

What This Means for Your Next Compost Pile

The Honest Limitations

These three studies weren't designed to be read together, so some caution is warranted in how far we stretch the connections. The composting study used wheat straw and never tested cannabis directly — its germination index readings came from cucumber seeds, a standard proxy, not from cannabis itself. The hemp fertilisation trial used composted digestate and cardoon waste, not the manure-and-straw blends from the composting study, so the specific ratios don't transfer directly. And the heavy metal study used a soil deliberately built to be heavily contaminated, cultivated for only eight weeks, in a single Iranian cannabis cultivar under greenhouse conditions — a long way from a typical outdoor grow. What connects them is the underlying pattern, not a single unified dataset: maturity and manure source are not incidental details, they are variables that measurably change what you harvest.

Taken together, these findings support what many growers already suspect from experience — combining organic and reduced-rate synthetic fertilisation is a genuinely viable, evidence-backed approach, not just a workaround. But the studies are equally clear that the benefit depends entirely on getting the input right before it goes in the ground: mature, well-ratioed, and sourced from land you actually trust.

Composting timeline: Fan T, Zhang X, Wan Y, Deng R, Zhu H, Wang X, Wang S, Wang X. Effect of Different Livestock Manure Ratios on the Decomposition Process of Aerobic Composting of Wheat Straw. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2916. doi:10.3390/agronomy13122916 — School of Earth and Environment, Anhui University of Science and Technology, China.
Organic-plus-inorganic hemp fertilisation: Sicignano M, Beleggia R, del Piano L, Enotrio T, Suriano S, Raimo F, Trono D. Effect of Combining Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on the Growth of Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Plants and the Accumulation of Phytochemicals in Their Inflorescence. Plants 2025, 14, 1519. doi:10.3390/plants14101519 — Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA), Italy.
Manure and heavy metal mobility: Safari Singani AA, Ahmadi P. Manure Application and Cannabis Cultivation Influence on Speciation of Lead and Cadmium by Selective Sequential Extraction. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal 2012, 21(3), 305–321. doi:10.1080/15320383.2012.664186 — Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
Posted on

Feed the Soil, Shape the Chemistry

Feed the Soil, Shape the Chemistry
Feed the Soil, Shape the Chemistry — What Three Growing Seasons Reveal About Soil and Your Cannabinoid Profile | The Certified
Cultivation Science · Soil Health

Continuing our cultivation science arc — we've covered harvest timing, pathogen damage, and long-term storage. This week we go underground, with new field data on how cover cropping versus tillage reshapes your plant's chemistry before it even flowers. For background, revisit our earlier looks at the soil food web, permaculture principles, and understanding soil.

Cultivation Science · Soil Health · Agronomy · Research

Feed the Soil, Shape the Chemistry

A three-season field trial compared two hemp cultivars grown side by side in cover-cropped, no-till soil and conventionally tilled soil. The totals didn't move much — but the individual cannabinoids and terpenes shifted dramatically, in ways every grower planning August land prep should understand.

The Grower's Connect · · 12 min read
6.4× higher soil aggregate stability under cover cropping — 35.2% vs 5.5%
more THC in Tangerine grown on tilled soil vs cover-cropped soil
3.7× more CBG in CBG Stem Cell grown on cover-cropped soil
n.s. difference in total cannabinoid content between fields — profile shifted, not the sum
Listen to this article Feed the Soil, Shape the Chemistry
Audio coming soon

Every grower has a theory about soil. Some swear by heavy tillage and a clean seedbed. Others have gone all-in on no-till and cover crops, convinced the extra effort in the off-season pays off in the flower. Until recently, that debate ran almost entirely on intuition and borrowed wisdom from vegetable farming — nobody had actually put two identical hemp cultivars into a cover-cropped field and a conventionally tilled field, grown them side by side for multiple seasons, and measured what came out the other end.

A study published this year in the Journal of Medical Active Plants by researchers at Penn State's Center for Cannabis and Natural Product Pharmaceutics finally did exactly that. Over two full growing seasons, they grew two high-CBG hemp cultivars — Tangerine and CBG Stem Cell — in neighbouring fields on the same farm: one maintained with long-term cover cropping and no tillage, the other conventionally tilled. Same sunlight, same rainfall, same planting density, no added fertiliser to either field. The only deliberate difference was what had been done to the soil.

With August land prep approaching, this is the ideal moment to look closely at what they found — because the results are not the simple "healthier soil, better yields" story you might expect. They're more interesting, and more useful, than that.

What "Soil Health" Actually Measures

Before comparing outcomes, it's worth understanding what separated the two fields in the first place. The researchers used a full Cornell Soil Health Laboratory assessment — the same framework we introduced in our earlier post on understanding soil — scoring each field from 0 to 100 across physical, biological, and chemical indicators.

In other words, this wasn't a marginal comparison. By almost every biological and structural measure, the cover-cropped soil was healthier soil. The open question was whether that translated into a better plant.

The Surprise: Totals Barely Moved

If you were expecting cover-cropped soil to simply produce "more" cannabinoids and terpenes, the headline result will surprise you. Total cannabinoid content — the sum of everything measured — showed no significant difference between the two fields, and no significant difference between cultivars either. Extraction yield and wax content were also statistically indistinguishable between cover-cropped and tilled plants.

"The differences weren't in how much the plant produced. They were in exactly what it chose to produce."

That's the finding worth sitting with. Soil quality, in this study, didn't act like a volume dial for cannabinoid production. It acted like a mixing desk — pushing some compounds up and others down, while the overall output stayed roughly level.

What Actually Shifted — Cannabinoid by Cannabinoid

Once the researchers broke total cannabinoid content down compound by compound, and cultivar by cultivar, the picture changed completely. Significant, sometimes dramatic, differences appeared — and critically, the direction of the shift depended on which cultivar was growing in which soil.

Read that closely and a pattern emerges: soil type didn't have one universal effect. Tangerine and CBG Stem Cell responded to the same two fields in genuinely opposite ways for CBD and CBDA. Any grower hoping for a simple rule — "cover crop for more CBD" or "till for more THC" — needs to reckon with the fact that genetics decided the direction of the response as much as the soil did.

The One Consistent Signal: CBG

Amid all that cultivar-dependent noise, one pattern held steady across both years of the study: cover-cropped soil consistently produced higher levels of CBG, the precursor cannabinoid that plants normally convert rapidly into CBD, THC, and CBC. That consistency — repeated across seasons and lining up with earlier pilot-year data — makes it the most robust finding in the paper.

The Terpene Twist: Soil as a Stabiliser

Terpene content told a different kind of story. Cover-cropped extracts trended higher in total terpenes than tilled extracts (roughly 30 mg/mL versus 21.6 mg/mL), though with considerable variability. The more striking result was in how the two cultivars compared to each other within each field.

Cover-Cropped Field

No significant differences in individual terpene levels between Tangerine and CBG Stem Cell. Two genetically distinct cultivars, grown in the same healthier soil, produced statistically indistinguishable terpene profiles.

Tilled Field

Sharp divergence between the same two cultivars — Tangerine came in significantly lower across several major terpenes, including α-humulene, β-farnesene, β-myrcene, and trans-caryophyllene, compared to CBG Stem Cell in the same field.

The implication is that cover-cropped, biologically active soil may buffer some of the genetic variability between cultivars, producing more uniform terpene expression regardless of which strain you're growing. Tilled soil, by contrast, let each cultivar's underlying genetics express more freely — for better or worse, depending on what that cultivar's terpene profile looks like under stress.

What This Means for Your August Land Prep

This is a single study on one farm, with two cultivars — the authors are upfront that the findings are hypothesis-generating rather than a finished playbook. But the directional signals are specific enough to shape decisions growers are making right now, heading into spring planting.

The Honest Limitations

The research team is candid about the gaps. Soil testing was only carried out once, during an early pilot year, not repeated alongside the two seasons of cannabinoid and terpene data actually reported — so the soil characteristics and the plant chemistry weren't measured in the same years, only assumed to be broadly stable between them. The study also used a single extraction method (supercritical CO2), didn't assess the soil microbiome directly despite it being central to how cover crops are thought to work, and drew on just two cultivars from one farm. As the authors put it themselves, the findings are best read as hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive — a strong starting point for further, more tightly controlled research, not a final answer.

What the study does establish clearly is that soil preparation is not a background variable you can ignore while focusing on genetics, light, and nutrients. It is an active participant in shaping what your plant becomes — sometimes in ways that cut against simple assumptions. As land prep decisions get made this August, that's worth having in the back of your mind before the tractor — or the cover crop seed drill — goes out.

Source Study: Chacon FT, Raup-Konsavage SA, Greenland K, Gearhart R, Desai D, Zhou S, Kellogg JJ, Raup-Konsavage WM. Impact of Soil Quality on Cannabinoid and Terpenoid Content of Cannabis sativa L. J Med Act Plants. 2025;14(2-3):19–30. doi:10.7275/jmap.3150 — Center for Cannabis and Natural Product Pharmaceutics, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA, in collaboration with Keystone State Testing Laboratory and Cedar Meadow Farm.
Posted on

What New Research Reveals About Cannabis and Alzheimer’s Disease

2025 review of 45 studies shows how CBD acts on amyloid and inflammation in Alzheimer's. A 2026 clinical trial shows a THC/CBD combination easing dementia agitation.
Grace at the End — What New Research Reveals About Cannabis and Alzheimer's Disease | The Certified
Research Deep Dive · Neurodegeneration

Stepping out of the growroom and into the clinic this week. We're pairing a 2025 review that maps everything the lab literature says CBD does inside an Alzheimer's brain, with a landmark clinical trial result reported at a major dementia research conference — literally yesterday — showing what a THC/CBD combination does for real patients at the end of life.

Neuroscience · Alzheimer's Disease · Clinical Trial News · 2025–2026

Grace at the End — What New Research Reveals About Cannabis and Alzheimer's Disease

A comprehensive 2025 review mapped 45 studies and 64 genes to show how CBD acts on the molecular hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. A year later, the first randomized controlled trial of a THC/CBD combination in hospice-eligible dementia patients reported results — and they were significant, fast, and sustained.

The Grower's Connect  ·   ·  13 min read
45 studies reviewed, spanning nine biological pathways CBD affects in Alzheimer's models
64 genes CBD modulates, mapped onto five enriched biological pathways
120 hospice-eligible dementia patients in the first controlled trial of its kind
87.2% of treated patients improved by week 12, versus 23.6% on placebo
Listen to this article Grace at the End — What New Research Reveals About Cannabis and Alzheimer's Disease
Audio coming soon — replace this div with your <audio> tag when ready
Quick Answers & Key Takeaways
  • CBD's Action on Alzheimer's Biology: A 2025 review of 45 studies shows CBD influences amyloid-beta, neuroinflammation, and oxidative stress pathways.
  • The 2026 LiBBY Clinical Trial: The first Phase 2 randomized trial showed a THC/CBD combination significantly reduced agitation in hospice-eligible dementia patients within just 2 weeks.
  • Sustained Relief: By week 12, 87.2% of patients receiving THC/CBD showed clinical improvement in agitation compared to just 23.6% on the placebo.

Roughly half of people with dementia experience agitation in the final stage of the disease, when they become eligible for hospice care. Pacing. Calling out. Hitting, kicking or resisting care. Distress that a person nearing the end of their life often cannot put into words. For decades, clinicians treating this have had almost nothing built for the job — off-label antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and opioids, borrowed from other conditions, carrying real risks in a population that is already frail. There has never been a proper controlled trial testing an alternative in this specific group. Until this week.

On 14 July 2026, at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference in London, researchers presented topline results from the LiBBY trial — the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a THC/CBD combination in hospice-eligible dementia patients. The results were, in the words of lead investigator Jacobo Mintzer, a "robustly positive" step forward for a population that clinical research has largely overlooked. It lands almost exactly one year after a separate team in Brazil published the most complete map yet of what cannabidiol actually does, at a molecular level, inside an Alzheimer's-affected brain. Read together, the two papers tell a rare kind of story in medicine: the mechanism, and then the proof.

Why Alzheimer's Needs New Treatment Options

Alzheimer's disease is not one problem but several happening at once — amyloid-beta protein clumping between neurons, tau protein tangling inside them, chronic neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and a slow collapse of the cholinergic signalling system the brain relies on for memory. The only widely used treatments, cholinesterase inhibitors, target just one piece of that puzzle, and their benefit is modest while their side effects — nausea, dizziness, cardiovascular complications — are not trivial, especially in older, frailer patients. A team at the Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, set out to systematically compile what the scientific literature actually says about cannabidiol as a candidate for filling that gap.

About the 2025 Review

The researchers searched PubMed and Web of Science for every paper matching "cannabidiol" and "Alzheimer's," with no date or study-type filter. Of 144 results, 45 original research articles survived screening to exclude reviews and papers that only mentioned the terms in passing. These 45 studies span in vivo, in vitro and in silico (computational) models, and together describe 61 distinct experimental outcomes across nine categories of Alzheimer's biology.

What 45 Studies Say CBD Does to an Alzheimer's Brain

Sorted by how much research attention each has received, five categories dominate the literature: amyloid-beta biology, behavioural changes, neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and the cholinergic pathway.

Amyloid-β · 26.2% of Outcomes

CBD is linked to lower expression of the secretase enzymes that cleave amyloid precursor protein into Aβ fragments, and is described as a potential inhibitor of beta-secretase activity. In vivo models show reduced Aβ accumulation in the hippocampus and cortex, with CBD's ROS-scavenging ability proposed as one driver — less oxidative stress, less signal for Aβ production in the first place.

Neuroinflammation · 18% of Outcomes

Microglia, the brain's resident immune cells, switch between a resting state and an inflammatory one in response to Aβ. Studies show CBD blocking that transition, reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines and inducible nitric oxide synthase, and acting as an agonist at the PPAR-γ receptor to reduce inflammatory damage and promote new neuron growth in the hippocampus.

Oxidative Stress · 14.8% of Outcomes

Multiple cell and animal models show CBD reducing reactive oxygen species without triggering compensatory overexpression of oxidative-stress genes — protecting cells from oxidising agents and from methylglyoxal damage, and modulating mitochondrial dynamics genes disrupted by iron overload in neurodegeneration models.

Behaviour & Cholinergic Pathway · 18% + 8.2%

Across rodent AD models, CBD-treated animals consistently show better memory processing and exploratory behaviour than untreated controls. Separately, CBD reduces the activity of both acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase — the same enzyme class current AD drugs target, but without their drug class's typical side-effect profile.

One human trial found that a daily three percent CBD regimen produced a significant improvement in behavioural and physiological symptoms of dementia, compared with conventional treatment — a rare piece of clinical, rather than preclinical, evidence in the whole dataset.

The Genetic Fingerprint of CBD

Beyond the narrative review, the team ran a computational analysis to see which specific genes CBD touches, and which biological pathways those genes belong to. Pulling from two studies that had measured gene expression changes after CBD treatment, they assembled a set of 64 CBD-modulated genes and tested it for pathway enrichment against the KEGG database — a standard bioinformatics technique for spotting whether a gene list clusters meaningfully around known disease pathways, rather than scattering randomly.

Five Pathways, One Signal

  • Alzheimer's disease pathway itself: genes tied to amyloid formation (PSEN1, PSEN2, BACE1, NCSTN) and neurodegeneration mechanisms clustered here, the strongest and most expected result.
  • Neurotrophin signalling: genes supporting neuron differentiation and maintenance, including kinase-signalling genes like AKT1 and the PIK3 family, which regulate cell survival and neurite growth.
  • Pathways of neurodegeneration — multiple diseases: a broader KEGG category capturing shared mechanisms — proteasome dysfunction, mitochondrial abnormalities — across several neurodegenerative conditions, not just Alzheimer's.
  • Lipid and atherosclerosis pathway: genes from the CAMK2 and heat-shock protein families, connecting CBD's action to lipid metabolism and to chaperone proteins that help prevent Aβ and tau aggregation.
  • Shigellosis — an unexpected fifth pathway: not an infection finding. This bacterial-infection pathway shares ubiquitination machinery with Alzheimer's protein-clearance mechanisms, and its appearance here reflects CBD's effect on ubiquitin-related genes rather than anything to do with dysentery.

Then the Real News — The LiBBY Trial

Everything above is preclinical or mechanistic — mice, worms, cell lines, gene lists. It is exactly the kind of evidence a 2025 review would flag as promising but incomplete, and the Brazilian team said so directly: current clinical evidence for CBD in Alzheimer's disease remains limited, most human studies combine CBD with other cannabinoids in ways that muddy interpretation, and there had been no randomized Phase III trial focused specifically on AD. That is the gap the LiBBY trial — Life's End Benefits of cannaBidiol and tetrahYdrocannabinol — was built to address, in the single symptom that causes the most suffering at the very end of the disease: agitation.

About the Trial

LiBBY was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study run by the NIA-funded Alzheimer's Clinical Trial Consortium across multiple U.S. sites. It enrolled 120 hospice-eligible participants with Alzheimer's or another dementia and clinically significant agitation — mean age 80.5, 55% female, 58% from underrepresented ethnoracial groups. Participants received an oral THC/CBD formulation dissolved in digestible oil (a half dose of 2mg THC/100mg CBD twice daily for the first week, stepping up to a full dose of 4mg THC/200mg CBD twice daily for weeks two through twelve) or a matched placebo. Agitation was measured using the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, a standard clinical scale.

The trial hit both its primary and key secondary endpoints, and the effect size was large by clinical-trial standards. At two weeks, the treatment group showed a 6.27-point greater reduction in agitation scores than placebo — a statistically significant, rapid effect. By twelve weeks, that gap had widened to an 8.23-point greater reduction, meaning the benefit wasn't just fast, it held. Clinician-rated global improvement told the same story from a different angle.

LiBBY — The Headline Numbers

  • Week 2 agitation reduction: 6.27 points greater in the THC/CBD group than placebo (p=0.0004).
  • Week 12 agitation reduction: 8.23 points greater in the THC/CBD group than placebo (p<0.0001), showing the effect was sustained, not fading.
  • Clinician-rated improvement, week 2: 83.9% of treated participants improved, versus 30.5% on placebo.
  • Clinician-rated improvement, week 12: 87.2% of treated participants improved, versus 23.6% on placebo.
  • Adverse events: similar overall rates between groups (46.7% treatment vs 42.4% placebo). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the treatment arm (23.3% vs 11.9%), though investigators determined none were related to the study medication.

Beyond the numbers, the investigators highlighted something just as important as the result itself: this population — hospice-eligible dementia patients, disproportionately excluded from clinical trials — could be recruited, enrolled and retained, including participants from historically underrepresented communities. Three-quarters of participants lived in community settings rather than institutions. Paul Aisen, one of the trial's principal investigators, called it proof that "high-quality clinical research can and should be conducted in people with advanced dementia," a population most drug development has simply passed over.

Reading These Two Papers Together

It's worth being precise about what connects these studies and what doesn't. The Brazilian review's molecular evidence is built almost entirely on isolated CBD — in mice, worms and cell lines, targeting amyloid, tau, inflammation and oxidative stress broadly across the disease course. LiBBY tested a THC/CBD combination, not CBD alone, in a single late-stage population, for a single symptom: agitation, not cognitive decline or amyloid burden. LiBBY doesn't confirm the amyloid or tau mechanisms the review describes, and the review's molecular story doesn't explain why adding THC specifically helped with agitation. What the two papers do together is bracket the picture — one showing plausible biology across the whole disease, the other showing a real clinical effect at one specific, brutal moment near its end.

What Neither Study Fully Answers

Both papers are honest about their own limits, and it's worth sitting with them rather than skipping past. The review's authors note that their gene-expression analysis rests on just two source studies and 64 genes — a starting map, not a finished one — and that their literature search, by design, excluded studies that examined CBD's mechanisms without explicitly tying them to Alzheimer's disease, which may have left relevant evidence out. More strikingly, they found no studies in their search that directly examined CBD's potential adverse effects or toxicity in the Alzheimer's context specifically — a genuine blind spot, given that CBD is known elsewhere in the literature to carry a dose-dependent risk of liver enzyme elevation and to inhibit several cytochrome P450 enzymes, raising real drug-interaction concerns in older patients typically on multiple medications.

LiBBY, for its part, is a Phase 2 trial, not the Phase 3 evidence typically required before a treatment becomes standard practice. It tested one specific dose, one specific population, and one specific symptom over twelve weeks — it says nothing about whether THC/CBD affects the underlying disease process, and the higher rate of serious adverse events in the treatment arm, even though unattributed to the drug, is a detail worth tracking rather than glossing over as the open-label extension phase reports its own results. Real answers about long-term safety, optimal dosing and disease-modifying potential are still ahead, not behind.

What This Actually Means Right Now

  • Not a Cure Neither paper claims CBD or THC/CBD reverses or halts Alzheimer's disease. The review documents plausible protective mechanisms; LiBBY documents symptom relief for agitation specifically, in the disease's final stage.
  • Complementary, Not Replacement The review's own authors position CBD as a possible complement to existing cholinesterase inhibitors, particularly for patients who tolerate current drugs poorly — not a substitute for them.
  • Different Products, Different Claims Most of the molecular evidence concerns isolated CBD. LiBBY's benefit is specifically for a defined THC/CBD combination at defined doses — the two are not interchangeable, and neither generalises automatically to over-the-counter CBD products of unknown composition.
  • A Population Finally Included Perhaps the most significant outcome of LiBBY, independent of the drug itself, is proof that hospice-eligible dementia patients can be safely and ethically enrolled in rigorous clinical trials — opening the door to more research in a group medicine has largely left behind.
  • Shared Decision-Making Still Applies The Alzheimer's Association's own response to these findings recommends non-pharmacological strategies as a first-line approach to agitation, with careful, individualised review of any pharmacological option alongside patients, families and clinicians.

What makes this pairing worth sitting with is the shape of the story, not just the numbers. A year ago, the honest scientific answer to "does CBD help with Alzheimer's" was: plausibly, mechanistically, in a lot of different ways, but nobody has properly tested it where it matters most. This week, for one of the disease's most distressing symptoms, in one of the populations medicine has most often excluded, somebody finally did.



Source Study 1: Mello-Hortega JV, de Oliveira CS, de Araujo VS, Furtado-Alle L, Tureck LV, Souza RLR. Cannabidiol and Alzheimer Disease: A Comprehensive Review and In Silico Insights Into Molecular Interactions. European Journal of Neuroscience 2025, 62:e70229. doi:10.1111/ejn.70229 — Polymorphisms and Linkage Laboratory, Department of Genetics, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. Received 9 May 2025; Accepted 2 August 2025.
Source Study 2: Mintzer J, et al. Topline Results From ,LiBBY Trial Show THC/CBD Combination Significantly Reduces Agitation for People With Dementia at End of Life. Presented at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC) 2026, London, 14 July 2026. The Life's End Benefits of cannaBidiol and tetrahYdrocannabinol (LiBBY) study — Alzheimer's Clinical Trial Consortium, funded by the National Institute on Aging (R01AG068324-01) and the Alzheimer's Association. Presenting author: Jacobo Mintzer, M.D., Medical University of South Carolina / Ralph H. Johnson VA Healthcare System.
Posted on

THE GHOST IN THE BOTTLE: HOW CBD TURNS ITSELF INTO THC, HHC AND CBN

cbd turns intself into thc
The Ghost in the Bottle — How CBD Turns Itself Into THC, HHC and CBN | The Certified
Cultivation Science · Processing & Storage

Continuing the cultivation science arc. We have covered harvest timing, AI readiness tools, bud rot, and eight years of curing data. This week we look at something growers and processors rarely think about: what acid does to CBD, and why the same chemistry behind the "legal HHC" market can switch on by accident, in a bottle, with no lab involved.

Cultivation Science · Processing Chemistry · Cannabinoid Safety · Research 2023

The Ghost in the Bottle — How CBD Turns Itself Into THC, HHC and CBN

A 2023 study out of Kyung Hee University put isolated CBD into mildly acidic ethanol and simply waited. No catalyst, no pressure chamber, no intent to synthesise anything. Within hours, the CBD was gone — and eight new compounds had taken its place, several of them psychoactive.

The Grower's Connect  ·   ·  11 min read
8 new compounds detected from one sample of acid-treated CBD
95% of CBD degraded within 5 hours at pH 2.0 and 70°C
pH 5.0 the threshold below which degradation barely happens at all
16 cannabinoids identified across every condition tested in this study
Listen to this article The Ghost in the Bottle — How CBD Turns Itself Into THC, HHC and CBN
Audio coming soon — replace this div with your <audio> tag when ready

Quick Answer: Can CBD Convert to THC or HHC?

  • Yes, CBD can convert to THC: Research confirms that exposing CBD to mildly acidic conditions (pH 2.0 to 3.5) causes it to naturally degrade into Delta-9 and Delta-8 THC.
  • HHC Formation: Without an industrial lab, acid-treated CBD dissolved in ethanol can undergo solvent addition to form ethoxy-HHC or methoxy-HHC analogs.
  • Storage Matters: Products formulated with citric acid (like gummies) or stored in warm environments accelerate this CBD degradation process.

Human stomach acid sits somewhere between pH 1.5 and pH 3.5. That is not a coincidence for this article — it is close to the exact range a team of South Korean researchers chose when they set out to answer a question the CBD industry has mostly avoided asking directly: what actually happens to cannabidiol when it sits in an acidic environment for a while? Not in a clandestine lab with a hydrogen tank and a palladium catalyst, but in the ordinary acidic conditions a CBD product might encounter — a citrus-flavoured gummy, a vinegar-preserved tincture, a bottle that got warm in transit, or simply a stomach after being swallowed.

The answer, published in the Journal of Food and Drug Analysis in 2023 by a team from Kyung Hee University, Kookmin University and Woosuk University, is not reassuring. Isolated CBD dissolved in ethanol and mildly acidified with hydrochloric acid began converting — on its own, at temperatures as low as 30°C — into a small chemistry set of psychoactive compounds. Delta-9 THC. Delta-8 and delta-10 THC. Cannabinol. Cannabichromene. And a family of alkoxy-substituted compounds the researchers themselves describe as HHC analogs.

Why CBD to HHC Conversion Matters for Cannabis Processors

We have written before about hexahydrocannabinol and the vape-shop version of the "legal high" argument — a semi-synthetic cannabinoid made by hydrogenating CBD under a metal catalyst and high pressure, deliberately, in an industrial setting. This study asks a different and in some ways more unsettling question: does CBD need a lab to start moving in that direction at all? The double bond that commercial HHC producers saturate with hydrogen gas turns out to be reactive enough that it will also react with whatever solvent it happens to be sitting in, given nothing more than acid and time. No catalyst required. No intent required.

About the Method

The researchers isolated 85 milligrams of pure CBD from cannabis inflorescence, dissolved it in ethanol, and adjusted the solution to pH 2.0, 3.5 or 5.0 using dilute hydrochloric acid. Samples were incubated at 30°C, 50°C or 70°C for periods ranging from one hour to twenty-four hours, then chemically tagged (a process called trimethylsilyl derivatisation) and run through gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, an analytical technique that separates and identifies individual compounds in a mixture by their mass fragments. This let the team track exactly how much CBD remained and exactly what it had turned into, at every combination of acidity, heat and time.

The Acid Degradation Pathway: How CBD Converts to THC and HHC

The transformation is not random. It follows a small number of well-defined chemical pathways, all starting from the same first step: acid activates the double bond in CBD's side chain, forming a positively charged carbon centre that is desperate to react with something.

Ring Closure → Delta-9 THC

The charged carbon reacts with CBD's own phenol group, folding the molecule closed into a new ring. This is the classic pathway to delta-9 THC, and it was the dominant early product in this study's ethanol solutions — the same reaction proposed to explain why CBD can convert to THC in simulated gastric juice.

Isomerisation → Delta-8 / Delta-10 THC

Once formed, delta-9 THC is not the end of the story. Continued acid exposure shifts the position of its double bond, producing delta-8 THC and delta-10 THC as minor but persistent by-products that kept accumulating for the full twenty-four hours tested.

Solvent Addition → Ethoxy/Methoxy-HHC

Instead of closing back into the ring, the charged carbon can instead grab a piece of the solvent itself — ethanol or methanol. The result is a hexahydrocannabinol-analog structure: the same skeleton commercial HHC is built on, but with an ethoxy or methoxy group sitting where a second hydrogen atom would normally go.

Oxidation & Ring Rearrangement → CBN and CBC

Separately, delta-8 THC can lose two hydrogen molecules to aromatise into cannabinol, while a distinct ring-opening and re-closing sequence produces cannabichromene. CBC's formation from acid-treated CBD had not been reported before this study.

Below pH 5.0, cannabidiol barely moves — even after twenty-four hours at seventy degrees Celsius. Push the same solution to pH 2.0, and it is largely gone within five hours.

The pH Threshold: At What Acidity Does CBD Degrade?

Of everything the study measured, acidity turned out to matter more than heat or time. At pH 5.0, essentially no degradation occurred, regardless of how hot or how long the reaction ran. At pH 3.5, degradation became measurable within five to ten hours. At pH 2.0, it was fast: roughly ninety-five percent of the CBD was gone within five hours at 70°C, and none remained detectable by the ten-hour mark. Delta-9 THC itself followed the same arc — it rose quickly, peaked around the five-hour point, and then began falling as it was further converted into ethoxy-HHCs, isomerised THCs and other products. A product tested once, early, would show clean CBD. Tested again later in its shelf life, it might not.

What The Numbers Actually Showed

  • pH 5.0, any temperature, 24 hours: no meaningful CBD degradation observed. This was the clearest safety margin in the entire dataset.
  • pH 3.5, 70°C: degradation and THC formation both increased steadily over the first ten hours.
  • pH 2.0, 30°C: degradation still occurred, just slower — acid alone, without much heat, was enough to start the reaction.
  • pH 2.0, 70°C: the fastest condition tested. CBD fell first-order over the first five hours; by ten hours it had disappeared from the chromatogram entirely.
  • Reaction solvent matters: in methanol instead of ethanol, the same pathway produced methoxy-HHC analogs instead of ethoxy ones — direct evidence that the solvent itself becomes part of the final molecule.

8 Psychoactive By-Products Formed from CBD Acid Degradation

At the most acidic, hottest, longest condition tested — pH 2.0, 70°C, twenty-four hours — the researchers identified eight distinct transformed products in a single reaction. Cannabichromene, delta-9 THC, and two ethoxy-HHC isomers were the major components. Delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, cannabinol and a hydroxy-HHC derivative showed up as minor components. Across the full study, including parallel experiments on whole cannabis extract, the team catalogued sixteen cannabinoids in total — among them eight compounds structurally classed as THC isomers, all considered potentially psychoactive, alongside CBN and the methoxy- and ethoxy-HHC analogs.

Some of these were confirmed against authentic reference standards — THC isomers, CBC and CBN all matched known compounds exactly on retention time and mass spectrum. The HHC analogs and the hydroxy-HHC derivative were identified more tentatively, by matching chromatographic behaviour and interpreting their fragmentation patterns, because no commercial reference standards exist for them yet. That is itself a telling detail: these are compounds well-resourced analytical labs cannot buy a certified standard for, let alone the average processor trying to test a finished product.

The Ghost Doesn't Need A Lab

Commercial HHC is made deliberately — CBD is bombarded with hydrogen gas under a metal catalyst and pressure, in a controlled industrial process. This study shows a much lower bar gets you partway to the same neighbourhood of chemistry. Ordinary acid, ordinary ethanol, and time are enough to start converting that same reactive double bond — not into hydrogenated HHC itself, but into closely related alkoxy- and hydroxy-substituted cousins, plus a full slate of THC isomers and CBN. The synthetic ghost from the vape shop can, under the wrong storage conditions, start forming quietly in a bottle nobody meant to synthesise anything in.

Best Practices for CBD Processing and Storage to Prevent Degradation

None of this is abstract chemistry for growers who stop at flower. But for anyone extracting, formulating, bottling or storing CBD products — which is an increasing share of the South African cannabis economy — this study has direct, practical teeth.

Applied Implications for Manufacturers

  • Acidic Formulations CBD gummies and beverages acidified with citric or malic acid, or tinctures preserved with vinegar or low-pH alcohol, sit within the reactive window this study demonstrates. Checking and logging the actual pH of a finished formulation — not just the raw extract — is worth doing, especially for products with a long intended shelf life.
  • Heat in Transit The study shows degradation still proceeds, just more slowly, at 30°C — an ordinary hot day in a delivery vehicle or a warehouse without climate control. Time and mild heat compound the effect of any residual acidity in a product.
  • Residual Extraction Acids Processes that use acid catalysts or acidic wash steps during extraction or winterisation need thorough neutralisation. Incompletely neutralised residues left in a finished oil are a slow-motion version of exactly the reaction this study ran deliberately.
  • Oral Ingestion This isn't only a shelf-life question. The paper's own introduction cites earlier research showing CBD converts toward THC and related cannabinoids in artificial gastric juice — an environment in the same pH range tested here. Swallowing CBD oil exposes it, briefly, to comparable conditions inside the body.
  • Testing Blind Spots Routine potency testing usually screens for CBD and THC at a single point in time. It will not catch a product that starts clean and slowly accumulates HHC analogs, THC isomers or CBN across months on a shelf, because most labs are not set up to look for compounds that do not yet have certified reference standards.

What the Study Does Not Resolve

The authors are candid about the limits of their own data. The ethoxy-HHC, methoxy-HHC and hydroxy-HHC identifications are tentative — inferred from retention behaviour and mass spectral interpretation rather than confirmed against authentic standards, because none exist commercially for these specific compounds. The psychoactivity of the ethoxy-HHC derivatives specifically is, in the authors' own words, still controversial and not fully studied; their pharmacological profile has not been directly tested in the way delta-9 THC's has.

The experiments also used isolated CBD at fairly high purity, dissolved in pure ethanol or methanol — a simplified system, not a direct stand-in for the complex matrix of a real gummy, beverage or emulsified tincture, where other ingredients could accelerate, slow, or otherwise change these reactions. And while the pH and temperature ranges tested were chosen to be systematic, they are a controlled screen, not a simulation of any one product's actual storage history. What the study firmly establishes is that the chemistry is real and follows predictable, mechanistically explainable pathways — not whether any specific commercial CBD product on a shelf right now has crossed into psychoactive territory.

What it does put to rest is the idea that CBD is chemically inert once it leaves the plant. Given the wrong pH, it very much is not — and the compounds it becomes are not obscure novelties. They are the same THC isomers, the same CBN, and structural cousins of the same HHC that the market has spent the last few years arguing about.



Source Study: Jeong M, Lee S, Seo C, Kwon E, Rho S, Cho M, Kim MY, Lee W, Lee YS, Hong J. Chemical transformation of cannabidiol into psychotropic cannabinoids under acidic reaction conditions: Identification of transformed products by GC-MS. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis 2023, 31(1), Article 11, 165–176. doi:10.38212/2224-6614.3452 — College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University; Graduate School of Techno Design, Kookmin University; College of Pharmacy, Woosuk University, Republic of Korea. Received 16 August 2022; Published online 15 March 2023.
The Certified — The Grower's Connect  ·  thecertified.co.za