Impact of Fruit Ferments on Cannabis Resin Flavor

We’ve heard hashmakers insist that fruit ferments can impact the flavor of resin produced and increase sweetness. Some going so far as to say feeding bananas can impart banana flavors on the resin produced.

Being scientifically minded this seems hard to believe. But at the same rate, my favorite fruit flavored rosin is ferment fed so there seems to be something to this idea.

Luckily we happen to have two 3×6 LSO beds in a 9×9 indoor room where most other variables can be controlled. Beds are on their fourth cycle and thus far have been treated identically. The idea behind this experiment is to feed one bed ferments and run status quo on the other. At the end of the experiment, we make hash from both and send them off for testing to see if there’s a discernible difference in quantity and variety of VOCs produced

The recipes below were provided by Knf_garden on instagram. He has ammased a healthy following and admits his techinques are not traditional KNF but claims they do work. He sent me a link to check out his paid learning modules where he describes his Full Spectrum Bloom Ferment saying there is a reason he calls it ‘a.k.a Hash Juice’ and claims it will get your plants to “spit resin”. Well that is enough talk, I cannot wait to put this to the test. Here is what his fruit ferments require:

KNF Farms Fruit Ferment Recipe and Process

2x Food Safe Bucket
1/2 gallon or so of water
Blender
PH Pen
5 gallon bucket strainer
Fruits/Veggies
- 5lbs Carrots
- 5lbs Mango
- 5lbs Papaya (green with no seeds rattling when you shake it)
- 5 lbs Apples
- 5lbs Cucumbers
- 5 lbs Zucchini
- 1 Bundle Banana
- 3 Large Bulbs of Beets
- 1 Small Watermelon
- 2x Large Aloe Leaf
- 10x Garlic bulbs
- 30lbs of sugar

The @LivingFerments Exotic Recipe

For this experiment we requested the @LivingFerments make us an exotic blend using tropical fruits. We used the following fruits:

Avocado
Honey melon
Formosa papaya
Alianca papaya
Red king Kong mango
Guifei mango
Rosa mango
R2E2 mango
Ataulfo mango
Fuyu Persimmon
Sweet melon
Hami melon
Scarlet nantes
carrot
Cantaloupe Burro
banana
Passion fruit
Brown figs
Early silver line melon
Coconut(water+meat)
Standard LAB (Lacto Bacillus) that @livingferments makes from cows milk. Not lab+

The total amount of slurry this produced was around 3 gallons and weighed 25 lbs so we added 25 lbs of organic cane sugar as per living ferments 1:1 recipe. The exact amounts I feel are not particularly important, and this certainly produced way more ferment that we actually needed for feeding two 3×6 beds.

I choose an exotic fruit blend because I though it would make a more exciting video and experiment but I now regret that because the true philosophy behind KNF is using local ingredients and not exotic fruits that have been shipped halfway across the world. We are currently fermenting some Lake Ontario salmon, a resource that is in great abundance here, and we will be experimenting with next year.

Fruit Fermentation Process

Blend all the materials one by one and put into 5 gallon bucket. Add water for dryer materials like carrots to make them easier to blend. After blending he gets in there elbow deep in the buckets stirring everything up. The contents is then distributed into two buckets which are just under half full. He then adds 30 lbs of sugar (1:1 based on weight) which about fills the buckets up. He then checks the pH of the slurry and finds it is at 4.7 which he says is perfect. He says if it is any higher than pH of 5 you should add more sugar. When the fermentation is complete the pH he says will end up around pH 4. Checking pH I am told is optional.

Fermentation temperature minimum 70F and length 7-10 days at those temps. During fermentation store in a dark warm area with a cloth cover. After the fermentation is complete he strains it using a cheesecloth

Experiment Methodology: Impact of Fruit Ferments on Cannabis Resin Flavor

Objective

To investigate whether feeding fruit ferments to cannabis plants affects the flavor and sweetness of the resin produced, and if it influences the quantity and variety of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Materials

Two 3×6 living soil (LSO) beds situated in a 9×9 indoor grow room.
Clones of cannabis plants from the same mother plant, genetically identical (Tallyman strain, sourced from Oni Seeds Co, specific cut by Pineapple_Reserve).
Mixed lighting system with one HPS light (1000W) surrounded by LED lights totaling 1000W.
Lux meter for light intensity measurement.
Standard cannabis cultivation supplies (pots, soil, water, etc.).
Full Bloom Ferment (see above) for the experimental group.
Sugar water for the control group
Soil samples sent to Logan Labs for nutrient and composition analysis.
Amendments as recommended by a soil expert (Soil Doctor).

Procedure

Setup and Preparations:
- Ensure that both beds are identically prepared and contain soil with equivalent nutrient profiles, as confirmed by Logan Labs testing.
- Plant one genetically identical clone in each bed. Ensure that the clones are healthy and of similar size and development stage.
- The lighting system will utilize a central 600W HPS light and 2000W of evenly distributed LED lights. Use a lux meter to confirm that both plants receive equal light intensity.
Treatment Application:
- Bed A (Control): Continue regular feeding and care protocols without any changes. This bed will receive simple sugar water to ensure that the effect being brought on by the fruit ferment cannot be attributed soley to an increase in sugars that are being fed to the bed.
- Bed B (Experimental): Introduce fruit ferments into the feeding schedule, specifically focusing on banana ferments, to potentially enhance the flavor profile of the resin.
- Feeding Schedule: The ferment was fed during all 8 weeks of the flowering phase, skipping the 9th week when the plants were harvested.
- Application Rate: Each feeding was conducted on Mondays, with 40 grams of both FFJ and sugar added per application.
Monitoring and Data Collection:
- Regularly monitor plant health, growth rate, and development in both beds. Document any observable differences in plant morphology or health.
- Use a lux meter regularly to ensure consistent light exposure for both plants throughout the growth period.
- Collect soil samples at the beginning and end of the experiment, sending them to Logan Labs for comparative analysis.
Harvest and Processing:
- At the end of the growth cycle, harvest the plants from both beds. Process the plant material into hash using consistent methods for both samples.
- Collect samples of the hash from both the control and experimental groups.
Chemical Analysis:
- Send hash samples to a certified laboratory to analyze the quantity and variety of VOCs present in each sample.
Data Analysis:
- Compare the chemical profiles of the hash from the control and experimental groups to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in the VOCs.
- Analyze whether the use of fruit ferments correlates with changes in the flavor profile or sweetness of the resin.
Documentation and Reporting:
- Document all findings, including plant growth data, soil nutrient profiles, light intensity records, and chemical analysis results.
- Prepare a comprehensive report detailing the methodology, results, and conclusions of the experiment.

Expected Outcomes

This experiment aims to scientifically validate or refute anecdotal claims that fruit ferments can influence the flavor and chemical composition of cannabis resin. Results will provide insights into the potential for agricultural practices to enhance cannabis product qualities through targeted feeding strategies.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Results

Quantitative Analysis: HighNorth Labs, our laboratory partner, will conduct thorough analyses and provide complete Certificates of Analysis (COAs) for both samples.

Qualitative Analysis: We will distribute jars discreetly marked to ten renowned members of the hash community. They will offer qualitative feedback in a single-blind setup, focusing on flavor, aroma, and effects.

Media

Results

Yield Comparison – Breakdown

Starting Material

Control Group (Sugar-fed): 4.4 lbs (2,000 grams) fresh frozen
Fruit Ferment (FFJ-fed): 4.7 lbs (2,130 grams) fresh frozen

Yield (Total Hash Rosin Produced)

Control Group (Sugar-fed): 31.7 grams
Fruit Ferment (FFJ-fed): 52.8 grams

Yield Percentage (Rosin Yield per Gram of Biomass)

Yield percentage is calculated as:
(Rosin Yield ÷ Starting Material) × 100

Control Group:
(31.7 ÷ 2,000) × 100 = 1.585%
Fruit Ferment Group:
(52.8 ÷ 2,130) × 100 = 2.479%

Percentage Difference in Yield

Percentage difference is calculated as:
((FFJ Yield – Control Yield) ÷ Control Yield) × 100

((52.8 – 31.7) ÷ 31.7) × 100 = 66.56%

Biomass Difference

Biomass difference is calculated as:
((FFJ Biomass – Control Biomass) ÷ Control Biomass) × 100

((2,130 – 2,000) ÷ 2,000) × 100 = 6.5%

Summary

Control Group (Sugar-fed):
- Yield: 31.7 grams
- Yield Percentage: 1.585%
Fruit Ferment (FFJ-fed):
- Yield: 52.8 grams
- Yield Percentage: 2.479%
Percentage Difference in Total Yield: 66.56%
Biomass Difference: 6.5%

Certificate of Analysis – FFJ

high_north_coa_00609666-ffj

Certificate of Analysis – Sugar Control

high_north_coa_00609665-sugar

FFJ vs. Sugar-Fed Rosin: A Preliminary Comparison

Our recent experiment compared two batches of live rosin: one from plants fed with fermented fruit juice (FFJ) and the other with a sugar-based feed. Here’s what we found:

Cannabinoids

The sugar-fed sample showed slightly higher total cannabinoids (90.91%) and THCA (83.18%), compared to the FFJ sample’s 89.48% total cannabinoids and 79.11% THCA.
However, the FFJ sample had significantly more CBGA (7.30%), a cannabinoid associated with therapeutic properties and unique flavor characteristics.

Terpenes

Both samples showcased impressive terpene profiles:
- The sugar-fed sample had higher total terpenes at 7.50%, with dominant Beta-Myrcene levels contributing to an earthy, musky profile.
- The FFJ sample measured 6.98% total terpenes but featured higher levels of Limonene, lending it a bright, citrus-forward flavor with a more balanced and complex aroma.

Qualitative Observations

Despite slightly lower lab numbers, the FFJ rosin stood out in sensory quality. Its robust, rounded flavor and smoother experience were noticeable, while the sugar-fed sample felt flatter and harsher in comparison.

Key Takeaway

This experiment highlights an essential point: lab results alone cannot define quality. While the sugar-fed batch may look better on paper, the FFJ rosin provided a superior sensory experience. Visual differences, such as the FFJ’s wetter appearance, suggest the presence of additional volatile compounds that enhance flavor and aroma but aren’t captured in standard tests.

As suggested by others we will also be doing some blind taste tests on the remaining sample material.

This is just the beginning of our exploration—stay tuned for more insights as we continue to study how feed inputs influence the final product!

Study Limitations

While the results of this experiment are promising, it is important to acknowledge several limitations that may affect the generalizability of the findings:

Sample Size:
This experiment was conducted with only two plants—one fed with sugar and the other with fermented fruit juice (FFJ). A larger sample size is essential to account for natural variations in plant growth and ensure the results are statistically robust.
Lighting Conditions:
The plants were grown under lights from different brands, which could introduce variability in growth and resin production unrelated to the feeding method. However, we used a lux meter to ensure light intensity at the canopy level was consistent between the two setups. Despite this, differences in light spectrum or quality could still influence results. To eliminate this variable, we are actively seeking a light sponsor to support a second revision of this study.
Soil Beds:
Although the soil beds were similar in composition and setup, they were not identical, which could contribute to differences in nutrient availability or root development. For greater control in future experiments, we plan to use smaller, uniform soil pots instead of beds, allowing us to test multiple plants under more standardized conditions.
Scale of the Experiment:
The small scale of this initial experiment limits our ability to explore additional dimensions, such as variations in feeding schedules, nutrient concentrations, or environmental factors. A second iteration with a larger number of plants will allow for testing these variables more comprehensively.

Future Plans

To build on these findings, we aim to conduct a follow-up study with:

A larger sample size using multiple plants per group.
Standardized lighting conditions, ideally supported by an LED light sponsor.
Uniform, smaller soil pots with pre-homogenized soil to minimize variability.
Exploration of further dimensions, such as terpene profiles, cannabinoid content, and yield over time.

By addressing these limitations and expanding the scope of the experiment, we hope to produce more robust and conclusive insights into how FFJ feeding impacts hash rosin production.

Experiment Timeline

April 2024 – Preparing Beds and Grow Room
May 2024 – Vegetative Growth
June/July 2024 – Flowering
~~August 2024~~ – Hash making and testing

**DEC 2024 PROJECT UPDATE ** – We got slammed with a busy harvest season and the fulfillment of our new BubbleTek units. We have the fresh frozen material from this experiment frozen and ready to be washed. Updates to follow in January 2025

January 8, 2025 – Sending Samples to High North Labs
January 14, 2025 – Full COAs will be shared with a written summary of the findings