Harborside, weGrow/Gropech, AgraMed, upscaling homegrowing methods for industrial cannabis production, RAND study

(This blog post was inspired by this article in East Bay Express from May 2010 entitled "Huge, Legal Cannabis Farm Study Surprises Industry, Officials".)

Table of Contents

1. an era of factory farmed pot
2. Dark Heart Nursery
3. weGrow, formerly know as iGrow
4. Gropech wants an Oakland permit
5. Oakland's Walmart-ization of weed
6. Harborside Health Center
7. Jeff Wilcox
8. Brion study
9. speculation regarding the Brion study
10. lighting
11. grams per watt
12. speculation on 58 pounds per day
13. cutting electricity usage by lights
14. speculation on AgraMed grow methods
15. wholesale/retail prices
16. example prices at Harborside
17. wholesale AgraMed weed and Harborside profit
18. homegrowing methods and homegrowing scaled up
19. ABF SOG
20. electricity usage in California
21. tax revenue
22. speculation on industrial joints
23. budget deficit
24. one vertical grow
25. lights for clones
26. clone lighting speculation
27. industrial vertical growing
28. 5x5 homegrows
29. California electricity crisis
30. ABF SOG annual homegrowing
31. smuggling out of California into the US
32. other potential homegrow yields
33. high yielding marijuana strains
34. qualities commercial marijuana growers might look for
35. outdoor growing
36. other grow methods
37. greenhouses
38. Oakland industrial medical marijuana permits
39. dates concerning Oakland industrial medical marijuana permits
40. negative impacts of homegrowing in Oakland
41. California cities and counties that currently allow medical marijuana dispensaries
42. RAND's estimated cost of production for legal marijuana

an era of factory farmed pot

— (back to toc)

On July 20, 2010, an article by Max Fisher appeared on The Atlantic Wire entitled "Is California Ushering in an Era of Factory Farmed Pot?" That was before the Oakland City Council approved a proposal to set up 4 marijuana factory farms. Fisher mentioned and linked to 4 articles: Oakland Pot Growers Fear "Wal-Marting" of Weed from July 19, 2010 by the Associated Press, via CBS News. An article by James Joyner seen on Outside the Beltway entitled Big vs Small Business. Pot Factory Farms by Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian. And an article from July 20, 2010 in the Los Angeles Times by John Hoeffel entitled Oakland's Choice.

In the article Big vs Small Business by James Joyner seen on Outside the Beltway, Joyner said "the fact of the matter is that [government regulation] almost always is demanded by big players in the industry in an effort to thwart competition."

On July 19, 2010, in the Oakland Pot Growers Fear "Wal-Marting" of Weed by the Associated Press, the AP said California medical marijuana growers "complain that industrial-scale gardens would harm the environment, reduce quality and leave consumers with fewer strains from which to choose." One of the 400 patient growers who sell marijuana to Harborside said "Nobody wants to see the McDonald's-ization of cannabis." I suppose you could say that current growers are afraid that WeedMart will shut down their business, and their option would be to work for WeedMart.

On July 20, 2010 in the Los Angeles Times, (before the Oakland City Council approved Ordinance No. 13033 C.M.S.) the article Oakland's Choice by John Hoeffel stated that passing the ordinance "could usher in the era of Big Pot." Hoeffel wrote "The proposal is a testament to just how fast the marijuana counterculture is transforming into a corporate culture." Dale Gieringer, the head of California NORML said "the ordinance basically sets up an oligopoly." He said "We'd like to see lots of microbreweries, rather than Budweisers."

Stephen DeAngelo of Harborside, the largest legal marijuana retailer in the world, reportedly stirred up much of the opposition to the ordinance, fearing for the livelihoods of his patient-farmers. DeAngelo said "It's not the role of government to decide the winners and losers in the marketplace."

I'm not so sure how much Harborside really cares about its patient farmers though, since the proposed AgraMed site is right next to Harborside, and Jeff Wilcox, the owner of AgraMed, concluded that a large-scale indoor marijuana farm was a good business opportunity after speaking to Stephen DeAngelo. Surely AgraMed would supply Harborside if AgraMed obtains a large-scale grow permit in Oakland.

Dark Heart Nursery

— (back to toc)

Dan Grace, owner of Dark Heart Nursery, said the ordinance was "not providing a pathway for folks to become more legitimate." According to Hoeffel, Grace said his operation could triple in size if Oakland allowed it.

Dark Heart Nursery is one of the the approximately 400 vendors to Harborside (their products are labeled "DHN" in HHCOAK tweets). According to Hoeffel, DHN raises about 10,000 marijuana clones per month in a 3,000 square foot space. Many (if not all) DHN clones each retail for $14 plus tax at Harborside (if not $14 then at least $12).

According to the vendor page at the Harborside website, Harborside buys clones Monday through Friday from 1PM to 6PM and pays $6 per stem. Clones should be "healthy, green, and have ample, bright white roots." Clones cannot have burnt leaves, twisted growing shoots, bugs, mildew, or algae. Harborside prefers clones in rockwool slabs of 50 cubes per tray. Vendors supplying clones to Harborside for the first time should bring 1 or 2 trays (50 to 100 clones). That would mean that Harborside pays $300 per tray of clones.

If Dark Heart Nursery sold all 10,000 clones to Harborside for $6 per stem, then DHN generates $60,000 a month. That would be 200 trays a month, or about 50 trays a week, or about 10 trays daily Monday through Friday totaling 500 cuttings. If Harborside sold all of those clones for $14 per stem in one month, Harborside would generate $80,000 from DHN clones alone. Examples of strains that DHN makes cuttings from and sells to Harborside include Blue Dream, Chem Dawg 4, Dream Queen, Romulan x Grapefruit, and Space Queen. Like I mentioned in this blog post, according to HHCOAK tweets, Chem Dawg 4 can contain up to 22.74% THC, Chem Dawg 4 Oil can contain up to 71.72% THC, and Dream Queen can contain up to 18.5% THC. If clones are not sold they could always be planted in soil and later sold as mothers. Also, I'm not sure if they do this but I suppose Harborside could even grow purchased clones to maturity and sell the bud or make it into concentrates. I mention clones at Harborside some more in another section below.

weGrow, formerly know as iGrow

— (back to toc)

The July 20 article by John Hoeffel also mentioned iGrow, a 15,000 foot hydroponics store which 26-year-old Dhar Mann opened in January 2010. It was pitched as the first such store to openly cater to medical marijuana growers. According to Hoeffel, Dhar Mann said he put together a team "to design an energy-efficient proposal for a large cultivation facility that would stack pallets of pot plants as high as five levels." In another section below I discuss a homegrow vertical growing method with four levels.

On July 19, 2010, in the article Oakland Pot Growers Fear "Wal-Marting" of Weed by the Associated Press, the AP mentioned that iGrow planned to apply for 1 of the 4 permits in Oakland. Ryan Indigo Warman, a teacher at iGrow, said that large-scale grows in Oakland would create hundreds of jobs and anyone who says the ordinance (Ordinance No. 13033 C.M.S.) was not good for Oakland "is only protecting their own interests." (Which begs the question, whose interests are weGrow formerly iGrow protecting?)

This website lists details about a lawsuit, GCH, Inc. v. Igrow LLC et al, filed April 28, 2010 in California Northern District Court regarding trademark infringement. Dharminder Mann (Dhar Mann) of Igrow LLC was the defendant. GCH, Inc. filed a "COMPLAINT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND DILUTION; UNFAIR COMPETITION; FEDERAL CYBERSQUATTING; AND FALSE ADVERTISING: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL; against Igrow LLC, Dharminder Mann." Justia.com also has information about the lawsuit.

I've noticed there is a GCH Inc in Long Beach, California with the website igrowhydro.com. I think there is also a G C H Inc in Santa Barbara, California.

There is also an iGrow, LLC in Loveland, Colorado, with the website igrowllc.com, which says they are not affiliated with any IGrow in California.

Dhar Mann's iGrow changed its name to weGrow Hydroponics (perhaps due to the above trademark lawsuit).

Trademarkia.com says a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for IGROWHYDRO on March 25, 2009, owned by GCH, Inc. of Long Beach, California. The description provided was "Online retail lawn, garden and nursery store services." The United States Patent and Trademark Office gave the IGROWHYDRO trademark serial number 77699032.

Trademarkia.com says a U.S. federal trademark registration for WEGROW GARDEN SUPPLY was filed on June 15, 2010 by iGrow, LLC, 70 Hegenberger Loop, Oakland, CA 94261. The description provided was "Retail stores featuring plant grow lights, hydroponic garden supplies and equipment; On-line ordering services featuring plant grow lights, hydroponic garden supplies and equipment." The United States Patent and Trademark Office gave the WEGROW GARDEN SUPPLY trademark serial number 85062767.

igrowoakland.com now displays the weGrow logo. There is a PDF on igrowoakland.com that mentions GCH, INC. The PDF shows a diagram of a Sentinel CTC-1 hooked up to a CO2 generator or regulator, an EVC-2, a de-humidifier, and a vent fan. Below it says COPYRIGHT 2007 GCH, INC. The website is gchydro.com. The PDF shows the address of locations in Long Beach and Santa Barbara. And it mentions the name GREENCOAST HYDROPONICS (the website gchydro.com mentions the name GreenCoast Hydroponics).

igrowoakland.com has a press release from October 2, 2010 entitled "60,000 sq. ft. Marijuana Cultivation Facility to be Unveiled near Oakland Airport." The press release said the 15,000 foot iGrow Hydroponics facility opened in January 2010. It said weGrow has over 75 franchise stores already under contract in under 8 months. It contained the "University of Cannabis", an onsite doctor for medical marijuana evaluations, live grow demonstrations, and a "Bloom Room" for "in-home technician build-outs."

The press release said scheduled events on October 3, 2010 at weGrow Hydroponics at 70 Hegenberger Loop in Oakland, California included from 10:30AM a luncheon and mixer for VIPS, media arrival, a press conference with comments by political leaders and community leaders in Oakland, question and answer period, ceremonial tree planting; general doors open, tours of the remodeled facility, the start of the main event party; an outdoor expo with free food, live music, and entertainment; the announcement of silent auction winners, with the party ending at 6PM.

The press release said Oakland City Councilmember Larry Reid, Oakland Mayoral Candidate Jean Quan, and Oakland Mayoral Candidate Don Perata would attend the unveiling. It said over 50 small business vendors and over 1,000 people were expected to attend. It said a video of 3D architectural renderings of their proposed 60,000 square feet LEED-certified marijuana cultivation facility would be presented. And that weGrow would submit via its sister company Gropech an application to be one of Oakland's 4 large-scale grows. I talk more about Gropech in another section below.

Eddie Piatt, the LEED-certified architect of Gropech, would "unveil a first look" of the proposed facility (which I assume means he would show the CGI video). The press release said the new facility will "replicate a medical laboratory", include 53ft mobile hydroponic grow rooms, and live demonstrations of cannabis cultivation "from seed to sale." It said if Oakland grants them a permit, the facility will go live in late January 2011. It would supposedly produce nearly 350 pounds of marijuana per week (which would be 18,200 pounds of marijuana per year, the press release says "approximately 20,000 pounds"), employ over 200 Oakland residents, and generate an estimated $5 million in tax revenue for the city of Oakland.

18,200 pounds of marijuana would be worth:

• $87,360,000 at $4,800/lb aka $300/oz on the black market
• $50,960,000 at a wholesale price of $2,800/lb aka $175/oz

Gropech's estimated production of 18,200 pounds of marijuana a year is less than AgraMed's estimated production by Brion and Associates of 21,270 pounds of marijuana year. The AgraMed facility was also estimated to create 371 jobs vs the 200 jobs for the Gropech facility.

The press release lists the weGrow website as egrow.com

Other articles I found online that mention weGrow include:

• Rise of a 'ganjapreneur' by Angela Woodall, September 6, 2010, Oakland Tribuen via San Jose Mercury News
• Proposed 60,000 sq. ft. marijuana growing facility in Oakland announced by Ryan Van Lenning, October 4, 2010, oaklandlocal.com
• Oakland City Leaders Attend Reopening Of Marijuana Megastore by Steve Elliott, October 4, 2010, tokeofthetown.com
• Walmart of Weed: weGrow a national enterprise by Ye Tian, October 6, 2010, Oakland North
• The Big Business of Marijuana by Tom McNichol, October 27, 2010, The Atlantic

Gropech wants an Oakland permit

— (back to toc)

On October 4, 2010, The Atlantic magazine had an article by Kyle Berlin called "Tour the High-Tech Cannabis Factory of Tomorrow." That was 2 days after the press release and 1 day after the scheduled unveiling of the weGrow/Gropech facility.

Berlin started by saying "It's no secret that weed is a big agricultural business, so it's only natural that it's made it to the next stop on its way to a full capitalist makeover: mass production."

He linked to a video which is a part of a proposal by Gropech, a non-profit which applied for a permit in Oakland. The video shows a 60,000 sq ft facility in Oakland that would contain 30,000 cannabis plants and could produce up to $50 million worth of weed per year. Gropech promised the Oakland City Council that if they got a permit, they would reinvest profits in the Bay Ara and create hundreds of union jobs. The site would supply marijuana to medical marijuana dispensaries across California (although if Prop 19 passes, I'm sure it would also supply marijuana to recreational weed stores). The co-founder of Gropech, Derek Peterson, said the medical marijuana laws in California "were sort of backward because they addressed retail sales before wholesale production." He said "It would be like if you built a bunch of liquor stores, and only afterward built distilleries." Peterson said much of the marijuana sold in dispensaries is grown in unregulated and often unsanitary environments, in basements and garages.

On a related note, Harborside buys their medical marijuana and concentrates from about 400 patient farmers. (I did find a record of this tweet online where someone said there were not very happy with the kief from Harborside, saying that they found numerous animal hairs, human hairs, and/or carpet fibers in it. I suppose the incident was an anomaly. Product going into to Harborside changes constantly. And I don't know if Harborside was lab testing at that time.)

Gropech reportedly brought in horticulturalists and electrical and mechanical engineers to advise them how to build environmentally friendly lab-quality growing facilities. The Gropech proposal will supposedly produce no wastewater and use solar energy; they are aiming for LEED certification, an internationally recognized green building certification system.

Gropech co-founder Derek Peterson said pests and mold are two of the biggest issues that indoor growers have to deal with. Pesticides and fungicides can be harmful to medical marijuana users, and Berlin said "there is currently no regulatory body to monitor the presence of such contaminants." (It should be noted that Harborside Health Center in Oakland claims on their website that all product they purchase from patients is lab tested for mold and potency by Steep Hill Lab.)

Peterson said "Water, high energy, and plant material are just a perfect recipe for fires." And Berlin said security is a major issue for any cannabis factory, since weed sells at about the same price per ounce as gold. (While the first part is true, the second part is inaccurate, even though cannabis *is* currently very valuable compared to the value of other crops. Marijuana certainly sells closer to the price of gold than any currently legal agricultural crop. As of October 28, 2010 at 1:44AM NY time, gold was was selling for $1,327 USD per troy ounce, which is 31.1034768 grams. (It was also reported as that on monex.com). 1 ounce is 28.3495231 grams. So at that time gold was worth $1,209.51 per ounce. High quality marijuana often sells for $300/oz. Some strains sold at Harborside sell for $325/oz on sale. So cannabis is worth about 1/3.7 or 1/4th as much as gold per ounce. However, cannabis is a renewable resource.)

Peterson said Gropech was in talks with security contractors such as ex-military and ex-Navy SEALs. He said if there's a break-in, if an employee is hurt, or if somethings happens to the marijuana plants, "then every naysayer is going to come out of the woodwork and say, 'I told you it couldn't be done'."

If Prop 19 passes, I'm sure industrial grow consulting and homegrow consulting will be a big business. Although I suppose the federal government could charge consultants with conspiracy to manufacture marijuana.

What will happen when the DEA runs into ex-military during raids of commercial grows?

Oakland's Walmart-ization of weed

— (back to toc)

On July 28, 2010, there was an article on fastcompany.com by Ariel Schwartz entitled "How Oakland's Walmart-ization of Weed Could Choke Out Small-Time Growers." At the time, Schwartz wrote "Oakland, California, became the first city this week to allow large-scale industrial marijuana cultivation." 192 people applied for permits and paid the $5,000 application fee (which I talked a little about in this blog post) to cover administrative costs for background checks and to review site/business plans. Schwartz said that according to the San Franscisco Bay Guardian, crops could be ready for harvesting as early as next June. Schwartz mentions Jeff Wilcox, and I'll talk more about him below. Schwartz also said that a Mendocino County sheriff said that their county only has "government and weed" to rely on for jobs, in an interview with SF Weekly. Schwartz said marijuana industrialization could be a tax windfall for local governments, but legalization and industrial weed could also cause unemployment in many parts of California. (In this blog post, I discussed medical vs recreational marijuana tax rates in Oakland, and potential tax revenues.) I also discuss potential tax revenue in this post.

Harborside Health Center

— (back to toc)

Harborside Health Center in Oakland is the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the San Francisco Bay area, and was founded four years ago on October 4, 2006. Harborside has also opened a location in San Jose (you can read reviews of that location here.)

On July 20, 2010 John Hoeffel of the Los Angeles Times wrote that Harborside is the largest legal marijuana retailer in the world. Harborside founder and Executive Director Stephen DeAngelo runs Harborside, and his 80 employees daily sell about 8 pounds (128 ounces or 1024 8ths) of weed in about 100 varieties to over 600 patients.

Harborside has a network of over 400 "patient-farmers." Harborside currently buys medical marijuana from collective vendors (homegrowers) for about $3,000 to $4,000/lb ($187.50 to $250/oz) for indoor cannabis and $1,500 to $3,200/lb ($93.75 to $200/oz) for outdoor cannabis, contingent on mold test results and depending on bag appeal. They also purchase clones and concentrates. Harborside tries to carry over 40 different types of bud, 30 different concentrates, as well as edibles. All medical marijuana bud and concentrate they accept for distribution is lab tested by Steep Hill Lab. Testing techniques include flame ionization detection, plate culture analysis, and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Product is screened for mold contamination, and also analyzed for potency of the cannabinoids THC, CBD, and CBN. Over time, THC degrades into CBN.

Harborside also sells cannabis seeds. As of August 29, 2010, Harborside carried the following seeds:

• 707 Truthband
• Alien Bubba
• Alien Dog V2
• Alien OG
• Apollo 13 bx
• Blue Dream x Velvet Elvis
• Blue Dream
• Blue Moon Rocks
• Blueberry Diesel
• Blueberry x Cheese
• C13 Haze
• Cheese Quake
• Chem 3 OG
• Chem 4 OG
• Chem Valley Kush
• Cloud 9
• Dairy Queen
• Dawg Daze
• Double Koosh
• Epik Purple
• Fat Elvis
• Flav
• Green Manalishi
• Hair of the Dawg
• Hashplant Haze
• Jack the Ripper
• Jojo Rizzo's
• Knight's Templar F2
• LA Woman (feminized)
• Malibu Fire Thai
• Mendo Express
• Mendo Montage
• Ocean Grown Truth
• OGiesel
• Oriental Blue
• Pure Royal
• Pure Royal 2
• Pure Truth
• Qleaner
• Qrazy Train
• Raskal's OG
• Razorback
• Sour Aliens
• Sour Cream
• Sour Daze
• Sour OG
• Sour Turbo
• Spacebomb
• Super Silver Haze x Romulan x Blue Elvis
• Tahoe OG
• The Truth
• The Void
• Vanilluna
• Velvet Elvis

Jeff Wilcox

— (back to toc)

Jeff Wilcox is a retired construction company owner who owns a seven-acre four-building parcel near I-880 and the Embarcadero in Oakland, California, which abuts the Harborside Health Center.



Wilcox spoke to Harborside founder and Executive Director Stephen DeAngelo and concluded that a large-scale indoor marijuana farm was a good business opportunity, and founded AgraMed. Jeff Wilcox asked the City of Oakland in 2009 if they were interested in licensing large-scale marijuana grows. They said they were interested, and then he consulted economists who would be willing to crunch the numbers and publish their findings. AgraMed is a non-profit mutual benefit company set up specifically to grow medical marijuana, but if Prop 19 passes, presumably the AgraMed facility would grow marijuana which would be sold through medical dispensaries and also through legal weed stores. Wilcox is now on the Proposition 19 steering committee. Jeff Wilcox has also donated $10,173.19 to the Proposition 19 campaign as of September 2010. AgraMed office manager Martin Kaufman has also donated $1,000 to the Prop 19 campaign as of June 2010. The LA Times has a CSV (right click save as) of all the donations for and against Prop 19.

On July 2010, John Hoeffel of the Los Angeles Times said Jeff Wilcox, already incorporated as AgraMed, "plans to manufacture growing equipment, bake marijuana edibles in a 10,000-square-foot kitchen and use two football fields of space to grow about 58 pounds of marijuana every day, many times the amount now sold in Oakland."

Brion study

— (back to toc)

According to David Downs of the East Bay Express, in late May 2010, a 6-month $16,000 study by Joanne Brion of Brion and Associates, commissioned by Wilcox, was released.

On June 16, 2010, David Downs of East Bay Express said that UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy was doing research to either support or refute Wilcox's data. And that the Rand Corporation was also doing its own independent research on the economics of cannabis cultivation. On July 8, 2010, the RAND Corporation released a study called Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets. (PDF (right click save as)). I discuss another RAND study in another section below.

Brion's report found that Wilcox's seven-acre facility could produce on average 58 pounds of cannabis per day (21,170 lbs per year), generating $59 million gross revenue annually (at $2,800/lb $175/oz wholesale, 21,170 lbs of weed would be worth $59.276 million). The yield estimates were based on the number of lights the facility could handle as well as quantity-per-light marijuana yields (perhaps grams per watt aka GPW). It said the facility would create up to 371 union jobs with an average salary of $53,700/year (which is a combined $19,922,700 in salaries a year). The facility could produce 1/4th of 1% of the estimated 8.6 million pounds of cannabis grown yearly in California. The Brion report is the first analysis on industrial cannabis cultivation. It took into account things such as security, the cost of weed, potential yields, construction and operating costs, and profit margins. The AgraMed site would require 1 employee for every 270 square feet of working space, although an existing wholesale warehouse might only need 1 employee for every 500/600/1200 square feet.

speculation regarding the Brion study

— (back to toc)

Since I haven't seen the Brion report, the following is my personal speculation. If those 371 jobs were all growspace workers, the facility has a maximum of 100,170 square feet (9,306 square meters) of working space (unless a building has more than one floor inside). However, growing space would be less than that due to walls, support beams, shelves, aisles, equipment space, harvesting and curing areas, trimming areas, packaging areas, storage space, etc. I've also read that the AgraMed facility will have a 10,000 sq ft kitchen. Germination areas, seedling areas, and cloning areas may limit mature growing space too, but lights might be swapped out as needed. Light movers might also be used for uniform lighting. Perhaps plants might be transported into different areas by forklift. Perhaps greenhouses could also be built on the roofs. If the facility also intended to produce cannabis seeds or cross their own strains, it would also have separate fertilization areas or structures. Conveyor belts could be used to move plants or move lights or inspect/package harvested bud. And not all employees would be growspace workers, it would require security guards, managers, accountants, etc.

A seven acre parcel is 304,920 square feet or 28,328 square meters. If fully utilized, that's equivalent to 12,196.8 legal Prop19 5x5 homegrows. This article by David Downs says the facility next to Harborside has 170,000 square feet (15,793 square meters), and would generate at least $2 million in tax revenue annually.

lighting

— (back to toc)

The AgraMed facility might use HPS bulbs, MH bulbs, CFW bulbs, or even fluorescent bulbs. I guess it might use xenon bulbs. It's possible to use incandescent bulbs, mercury-vapor bulbs, LEDs, new ESL bulbs, or other bulbs, but I doubt they would. HPS bulbs are available from 9w to 1000w as far as I can tell. HPS bulbs give off more red light; red light can aid germination and induce flowering in cannabis. MH bulbs vary from 32w to 400w to 1000w as well as 1500w, 2000w, 2500w, 3000w, 4000w, 6000w, 12,000w, and 18,000w. MH bulbs give off more blue light. Often, MH bulbs are used for vegetative growth, and HPS bulbs are used for flowering growth. However, many strains of cannabis can be grown without a vegetative stage of 24/7 light at all. The high price of higher watt MH bulbs, the risk of breakage, the possibility of burning crops, efficiency, life expectancy, and existing electrical wiring in the facility may rule out very high watt MH bulbs. The life expectancy of various bulbs would also be a factor. At the end of life, HPS bulbs and MH bulbs both go through cycling. Sophisticated ballasts can detect cycling and give up trying to start the lamp. I think it's likely that the facility would use digital ballasts.

There is also the burn position of bulbs (horizontal, vertical) to consider. And the lumens output. And foot-candles (lumens per square foot). And watts per square foot. Cost per lumen is another factor. And color temperature in Kelvin (I've seen mentions of 6500K, 2700K, 5100k, 5500k, 3000k, etc). I've read that the sun shines on the Earth at 1,368 watts per square meter (about 127 watts/square foot) -- although it varies during the day and year. I've read that daylight has a color temperature of about 6500K. Full sunlight has an intensity of about 10,000 lumens/square foot. On an overcast day there is about 1,000 lumens/square foot.

I've read that seedlings and clones need 375 lumens/sq ft (or 400-500; or 1,500 lumens/sq ft), that vegetative growth needs about 2,500 lumens/sq ft, and that flowering needs about 10,000 lumens/sq ft. The inverse-square law for light would also play a role (lumens / distance from source, squared). Perhaps 18,000w MH bulbs could be used for industrial cannabis production if placed at a proper distance from plants. I've read about 18,000w MH bulbs that are 5600K and output 1,650,000 lumens. I think a 1,650,000 lumen bulb could output 10,000 lumens/sq ft on an 165 sq ft area (12.84 ft x 12.84 ft). That would be about 109 watts/sq ft.

A 1000w 2100K 150,000 lumens HPS bulb could output 10,000 lumens/sq ft over 15 sq ft (3.87ft x 3.87ft). I've noticed that there are 6500K CFL bulbs. I've also noticed 400w 6500K MH bulbs with 32,000 initial/24,000 mean lumens. I've also noticed 24w 6500K 2,000 lumen 2ft T5 fluorescent tubes; I suppose those might be good for seedlings and clones.

I'm not sure, but perhaps spectral power distribution and
standard illuminant would also be factors.

As of June 2010, the average retail price of electricity to consumers in California was $0.1551/kWh for the residential sector, $0.1498/kWh for the commercial sector, $0.1127/kWh for the industrial sector, $0.0839/kWh for the transportation sector, and $0.1441/kWh for all sectors.

grams per watt

— (back to toc)

The Brion report estimated that the AgraMed facility could produce 58 pounds of cannabis per day on average (21,170 lbs per year). The grams-per-watt rate could vary depending on cannabis strain grown at any time, and will likely not be uniform; although an average GPW rate could probably be determined per strain, or for the entire facility.

GPW rates online are often given as GPW per harvest. But I think 2.0GPW harvested after 6 weeks is different than 2.0GPW harvested after 18 weeks. In the first instance, you're harvesting 2.0GPW three times as often as the second instance. It seems to me that 2.0GPW for a 6 week strain is different than 2.0GPW for a 18 week strain, considering yearly yields and electrical costs. 2.0GPW after 42 days is 0.048GPW per day, and 2.0GPW after 126 days is 0.016GPW per day. Perhaps GPW rates should be discussed as GPWH (grams per watt hour aka g/Wh) or GPKWH (grams per kilowatt hour aka g/kWh). There is a thread on 420magazine.com from July 2009, and a thread on rollitup from January 2010 that mention a gram per watt calculator, and a garden efficiency (GE) rating.

As far as I can tell, in order to determine a grow's GE rating:

1. Take the total wattage of the bulbs and divide by 1000 to determine kilowatts
2. Multiply that result by the hours of light used daily to determine kilowatt hours
3. Multiply that result by total days until harvest to determine total kilowatt hours consumed
4. Determine the yield in grams
5. Divide the yield in grams by kilowatt hours

I have seen online reported GE ratings of 1.43, 1.58, 1.63, 1.75, and 1.89. I suppose GE (garden efficiency) could also be called g/kWh (grams per kilowatt hour). However, the formula above doesn't take into account energy used for fans, pumps, other grow lights, air conditioning, etc. I suppose a homegrower could easily determine their total g/kWh with a scale and something like a P3 Kill A Watt, which costs under $20 shipped in the lower 48 states.

speculation on 58 pounds per day

— (back to toc)

Suppose the AgraMed facility only used 1,000w HPS bulbs for maturing female clones, and skipped the vegetative growth stage, meaning, grow lights would be on 12 hours a day, off 12 hours a day for flowering, perhaps staggered in various areas or buildings to allow continuous production (ignoring for one moment lights used for seedlings, mothers, and new clones). I've if figured this right, for example, 12 hours of 26.31 kw and another 12 hours of 26.31 kw would be 26.31 kw * 24 hours, and cost the same as 52.62 kw * 12 hours (unless off-peak time cost less). It would take at least 6 or 7 weeks until first harvest starting from seed, less if starting from clones or starter plants.

In order to produce indoors 58 lbs of cannabis (26,308.3575 grams) per harvest:

• Yields of 0.5GPW would require over 52 1000w bulbs
• Yields of 1.0GPW would require over 26 1000w bulbs
• Yields of 1.5GPW would require over 17 1000w bulbs
• Yields of 2.0GPW would require a little over 13 1000w bulbs

If you harvested daily, and produced 58 lbs every harvest, for yields of 2.0GPW per harvest would you need over 13 1000w bulbs for each and every harvest. (Does that mean 13 1000w for each day, for each group of plants?)

58 lbs a day is 21,170 lbs a year. I suppose it depends on how many harvests a facility performs in a year. With cannabis that matures in 6 weeks, you could harvest those plants 7 times a year for each new plant. For 8 week plants, 6.5 harvests/year for each new plant. For 10 week plants, 5.2 harvests/year for each new plant. For 12 week plants, 4.3 harvests/year for each new plant. For 14 week plants, 3.7 harvests/year for each new plant. For 16 week plants, 3.25 harvests/year for each new plant. For 18 week plants, 2.9 harvests/year for each new plant. If you started as many cuttings daily as plants you harvested daily, you could harvest continually. And perhaps larger cuttings from flowering plants could mature in a shorter period of time.

If one harvested once a year, in order to produce 21,170 lbs of cannabis (9,602,550.47 grams):

• Yields of 0.5GPW would require 19,205,100.94 watts, or over 19,205 1000w bulbs
• Yields of 1.0GPW would require 9,602,550.47 watts, or over 9,602 1000w bulbs
• Yields of 1.5GPW would require 6,401,700.31 watts, or over 6,401 1000w bulbs
• Yields of 2.0GPW would require 4,801,275.24 watts or over 4,801 1000w bulbs

cutting electricity usage by lights

— (back to toc)

It may be possible to cut electricity usage by lights in the facility by 30 to 40% by installing LumiSmart Intelligent Lighting Controllers developed by Cavet Technologies, which cut the power to bulbs for nanoseconds at a time. That article says a controller for each lamp takes 20 minutes to install and costs $2,000 (although I suppose bulk orders may cost less). (Can a single controller control more than one lamp?) The Cavet site says the controller is "connected to individual dedicated lighting circuits at the electrical panel" and takes 30 to 60 minutes to install by a licensed electrician. Using the calculator on cavettech.com, an ABF facility with 28,000 square meters of indoor growspace, producing 108,810 pounds of cannabis per year, and consuming 55.202 million kWh annually at the industrial rate of $0.1127/kWh, with 30% savings would save $1.866 million/year and 40% savings would save $2.488 million/year in electrical costs. I don't know how much electricity the controllers themselves use, but I suppose it's negated by the savings. I also don't know how a LumiSmart controller would affect the life expectancy of bulbs or how cannabis plants might be affected while growing under those conditions.

speculation on AgraMed grow methods

— (back to toc)

It's likely that the AgraMed facility would not grow in soil. Some US states require a soil medium in order to obtain organic certification. Hydroponics using various mediums might be used. Eurofresh Farms in Willcox, Arizona is currently the largest commercial hydroponics facility on the planet. Eurofresh has about 1/3rd of the commercial hydroponic greenhouse area in the US, with 129 hectares (318.77 acres) under glass. In 2005, the company sold 56 million kilograms of tomatoes (123,458,867 pounds) which were grown without pesticides in rockwool using the run to waste method. That's 387,297.63 pounds of tomatoes per acre per year. Suppose Arizona legalized marijuana and Eurofresh switched over to cannabis cultivation. 123,458,867 pounds of cannabis would be worth: $49.3 billion at $25/oz, $98.7 billion at $50/oz, $197.5 billion at $100/oz, $296.3 billion at $150/oz, $345.6 billion at $175/oz, and $592.6 billion at $300/oz. Many hydroponics facilities do not use any herbicides or pesticides, and use integrated pest management. The AgraMed facility may use controlled-environment agriculture. The facility might also utilize CO2 enrichment.

Aeroponics, growing in no medium with a fine mist of nutrient solution, uses 65% less water than hydroponics. And NASA has demonstrated that plants grown using aeroponics have an 80% increase in dry weight biomass vs plants grown using hydroponics, and require 1/4th of the nutrients that hydroponically grown plants do. Clones of cannabis are also propagated very successfully using aeroponics and plain water, and plants grown using aeroponics will not suffer transplant shock if transplanted to soil (unlike hydroponically grown plants). Hydroponics can also create conditions conducive to growth of salmonella. However, I have seen skepticism online regarding the ability of aeroponic systems to grow plants yielding 4 pounds of bud each.

wholesale/retail prices

— (back to toc)

The Brion report estimates the average wholesale prize of medical marijuana at $2,800 per pound ($175/oz). The following are some current retail prices as of early October 2010 at Harborside Health Center in Oakland, next to the AgraMed site:

example prices at Harborside

— (back to toc)

Specials offered on October 7, 2010 at Harborside Health Center in Oakland included:

• Phantom Diesel for $14/g, $45/8th, $295/oz.

Specials offered on October 6, 2010 at Harborside Health Center in Oakland included:

• Pre-rolled joints: $10 for 1.05g, $12 for 1.25g, $15 for 1.05g with kief, $15 for 1.05g with hash.
• THCheesecake in cherry, peach, or plain for $12.
• GDP Hash for $15/g.
• Purple Big Bud for $12/g, $35/8th, $240/oz.
• Jilly Bean for $14/g, $45/8th, $295/oz.
• Jack Flash Super Melt concentrate for $45/g.
• Super Diesel for $15/g, $50/8th, $325/oz.
• Cotton Candy for $15/g, $50/8th, $325/oz.
• Headband Hash for $25/g.
• All starter plants for $16+tax unless other marked, such as 707 Headband, Durban #10, and Chocolope.
• All clones for $12+tax unless otherwise marked including:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
• Afghan Kush by SCM
• Atomic Northern Lights
• Blue Cream by MO
• Blue Dream
• Blueberry x Cheese by MO
• Boulder Creek Kush by SCM
• Boyzenberry by MO
• Bubba Kush
• Buddha's Passion
• Candy Kush
• Cherry Punch
• Cloud 9 by MO
• Cotton Candy by MO
• Devil's Weed
• GDP
• GDP by SCM
• Grape by SCM
• Harlequin by HOD (CBD-rich)
• Headband
• 707 Headband by HOD
• Kushadelic
• Kushage
• LA Woman
• Lemon Kush by HOD
• LSD
• Northern Lights #5
• NYC Diesel
• Pure Kush
• Purple Kush
• Romulan by MO
• Silver Kush
• Sour Diesel
• Sour Flower
• Sour Wreck
• Special AK-47
• Super Grape Ape by MO
• Super Lemon Haze
• Super Silver Haze
• Super Silver Haze by MO
• Sweet Tooth
• Clones for $14+tax each including:
• Blue Dream by DHN
• Chem Dawg 4 by DHN
• Dream Queen by DHN
• Romulan x Grapefruit by DHN
• Space Queen by DHN

Specials as of October 5, 2010 included:

• Velvet Kush Hash for $20/g.
• AK-47 Hash for $10/g.
• GDP Hash for $15/g.
• Purple Dream Oil for $30/g.
• Durban Bubble hash for $30/g.
• Spicy Jack for $15/g, $50/8th, and $325/oz.
• Sweet OG for $15/g, $50/8th, and $325/oz.

Prices as of October 1, 2010 included:

• Phantom Diesel Hash for $15/g.
• Top shelf items included East Coast Sour Diesel, GDP x Hindu Kush, Pineapple Kush, Tahoe OG, and Tangerine Kush.
• Gelatos for $12.
• Pre-rolled joints: $10 for 1g, $15 for 1g with kief.
• Humboldt Afgoo Kief for $15/g.
• THC Gold for $35/0.5g, $60/g.
• Trainwreck for $14/g, $45/8th, $295/oz.
• Super Silver Haze for $13/g, $40/8th, $260/oz.
• Hawaiian Red for $12/g, $35/8th, $240/oz.
• Sage Kush for $14/g, $45/8th, $295/oz.
• All clones for $12+tax unless otherwise marked, including:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
• 707 Headband by HOD
• Atomic Northern Lights
• Blackberry
• Blue Cream by MO
• Blue Dream
• Blueberry x Cheese by MO
• Buddha's Passion
• Casey Jones by QB
• Chem Dawg
• Cherry Punch
• Cloud 9
• Cloud 9 by MO
• Cotton Candy by MO
• Devil's Weed
• Dream Queen
• G-13 x Amnesia Haze by QB
• GDP
• God Bud
• Grape
• Green Kush
• Gummi Bear OG
• Harlequin by HOD (CBD-rich)
• Hindu Skunk
• Kushadelic
• Kushage
• Kushberry by QB
• LA Woman
• Lemon Kush by HOD
• Lemon OG
• Mako Haze by QB
• Martian Mean Green
• NYC Diesel
• OG Kush
• OG Kush by SFV
• Pine OG
• Pure Kush
• Purple AK-47
• Purple Kush
• Red Cherry Berry by QB
• Romulan x Grapefruit by DHN ($14)
• Santa Cruz Kush
• Santa Cruz Kush by SCM
• Silver Kush
• Sour Diesel
• Sour Flower
• Sour Wreck
• Space Queen by DHN ($14)
• Special AK-47
• Super Lemon Haze
• Super Silver Haz by QB
• UK Cheese
• Urkulan
• Violator Kush by QB
• White Widow x Bubblegum

Reoccuring sale prices for various strains at Harborside as seen on Twitter include:

• $09/g, $20/8th, $145/oz
• $11/g, $30/8th, $215/oz
• $12/g, $35/8th, $210/oz
• $12/g, $35/8th, $225/oz
• $12/g, $35/8th, $240/oz
• $12/g, $35/8th, $260/oz
• $12/g, $35/8th, $280/oz
• $13/g, $40/8th, $260/oz
• $14/g, $45/8th, $295/oz
• $15/g, $50/8th, $325/oz
• $20/g, $35/8th, $280/oz
• $25/g, $35/8th, $280/oz
• $25/g, $40/8th, $320/oz
• $25/g, $45/8th, $320/oz

wholesale AgraMed weed and Harborside profit

— (back to toc)

If Harborside purchased weed wholesale from AgraMed at $175/oz ($21.875/8th, $6.17/g):

• $12/g retail is $5.83 profit/g, $35/8th is $13.125 profit/8th, $240/oz is $65 profit/oz
• $13/g retail is $6.83 profit/g, $40/8th is $18.125 profit/8th, $260/oz is $85 profit/oz
• $14/g retail is $7.83 profit/g, $45/8th is $23.125 profit/8th, $295/oz is $120 profit/oz
• $15/g retail is $8.83 profit/g, $50/8th is $28.125 profit/8th, $325/oz is $150 profit/oz

Suppose Harborside purchased AgraMed's entire yearly harvest of 21,170 lbs of cannabis for $2,800/lb wholesale ($175/oz) and sold it all. Harborside would spend $59.2 million ($59,276,000) obtaining a year's worth of product. 1 pound is 16 ounces. 1 oz is 28.3495231 grams (although Prop 19 defines 1 oz as 28.5 grams). An eighth of one ounce is 3.54369039 grams (although this is often rounded to 3.5 grams which is 1/8.09986374, not 1/8; incidentally 1/8 of 28.5 grams is 3.5625 grams). 21,170 lbs is 338,720 ounces; or 2,709,760 eighths (based on multiplying ounces by 8, not dividing grams by 3.5 which would be 2,743,585.85 eights -- or 33,825.85 more eighths); or 9,602,550.47 grams (although it would be 9,653,520 grams if you multiplied pounds * ounces * the initiative's definition of 28.5 grams). A store might define an "eighth" as 3.5 grams (commonly used for eighths), or 3.54369039 grams (exactly 1/8 an oz), or 3.5625 grams (1/8 of 28.5 grams, the Prop 19 definition of an oz). It would be more lucrative for a store to define an eighth as 3.5 grams.

Suppose Harborside sold all 21,170 lbs at one price. The following is how much profit they would generate annually (retail price - wholesale price) from highest to least. I've used net profit figures from the list above. The figures for eighths below was determined by taking a a common price for an eighth at Harborside minus 1/8th the wholesale price of $175/oz, $21.875. I've also included figures of profit on the sale of 3.5g "8ths." 21,170 lbs contains 2,743,585.85 3.5g "8ths." I used the formula ((2,743,585.85 * retail cost of 3.5g "8th") - $59,276,000) to determine profit on the sale of 3.5g "8ths."

• $84,790,520.65 at $15/g
• $77,903,292.50 at $50/3.5g "8th"
• $76,212,000 at $50/8th
• $75,187,970.18 at $14/g
• $65,585,419.71 at $13/g
• $64,185,363.20 at $45/3.5g "8th"
• $62,663,200 at $45/8th
• $55,982,869.24 at $12/g
• $50,808,000 at $325/oz
• $50,467,434 at $40/3.5g "8th"
• $49,114,400 at $40/8th
• $40,646,400 at $295/oz
• $36,749,504.80 at $35/3.5g "8th"
• $35,565,600 at $35/8th
• $28,791,200 at $260/oz
• $22,016,800 at $240/oz

These figures are for medical marijuana only. And assume a constant wholesale price of $2,800/lb. But different strains would likely be sold for different wholesale prices, and different retail prices. And if Prop 19 passes, the price of marijuana will almost certainly drop. Medical marijuana won't be worth $2,800/lb and AgraMed would have to sell it wholesale for less than that. Perhaps Harborside would obtain a legal marijuana license (or maybe they wouldn't need another one?) and sell all of their marijuana for less. But they would move much more volume.

homegrowing methods and homegrowing scaled up

— (back to toc)

There was an article published June 5, 2003 on the High Times website by "Max Yields" entitled "5 Most Frequently Asked Grow Questions." That article may have some useful information.

ABF SOG

— (back to toc)

In the Sea of Green method by Al B Fuct (which I'll call the ABF SOG method), he harvests 2lbs/month in a 72 square foot area (6.69 square meters) that is 7 feet high. That's 135.6g per square meter monthly. The ABF SOG method is suited for frequent harvests, not necessarily high yearly yields. He uses 1 400w HPS on 24/7 for mothers, 2 1000w HPS both in a 12/12 flowering cycle, and a clone box with 6 18w 24-inch fluorescent bulbs on 24/7 (but off 6-8hrs after putting in a new batch of cuttings). It's a flood hydro system with 4 trays with 4 reservoirs for flowering plants, and 1 tray with 1 reservoir for mothers. He keeps about 6 to 8 mothers, and does about 30 cuttings every 2 weeks. It takes about 15 days for the mothers to regrow the cut material. Cuttings go into the clonebox and are rooted in rockwool cubes. Later he chooses the best 20 to 23 clones to put directly into the flowering area. Leftover clones are discarded or used to replace mothers. Mothers are replaced one by one, about every 4 to 8 weeks as necessary. Each 1000w bulb is over two 0.81 square meter trays, for a total of 4 trays. [0.81 square meters is 8.718 square feet or about 35.4" squared. 2 such trays would take up 17.43 square feet. 4 such trays would take up 34.86 square feet. 2000w over 34.86 square feet is 57.37w/sq ft.] In the flowering area, clones undergo vegetative growth for about 3 to 4 weeks until they're about 36" to 40" tall then stop getting taller. Pots in the flowering area are 4L (about 1 gallon), filled with loose rockwool, and have a 175mm (6.8") top diameter, 130mm (5.1") bottom diameter, and are 175mm (6.8") tall. [I guess you could fit 25 of those pots in square trays with 35.4" sides.] In week 2 or 3 in the flowering area, all branching on the lower third of the plant is cut off, with the goal to grow only the top cola. Each tray in both the vegetative and flowering areas has its own pump, reservoir, and timer. Trays in the flowering area are rotated. Every 2 weeks, as each clone batch goes into tray #1, the batch in tray #4 is harvested after 8 weeks of flowering (for 10 weeks total I believe.)

In 30 days, this is how much electricity the ABF SOG method uses on grow lights:

• 1 * 400w / 1000 is .4 kw * 24 hours * 30 days is 288 kWh for mothers
• 2 * 1000w / 1000 is 2 kw * 12 hours * 30 days is 720 kWh for flowering
• 6 * 18w / 1000 is .108 kw * 704 hours ((24 hours * 30 days) - (8 hours * twice a month)) is 76.032 kWh for cuttings

In that month, he uses 1,084.032 kWh on grow lights. A monthly harvest of 2 pounds is 907.18474 grams. 907.18g/1,084.032 kWh is 0.837g/kWh per month. It sounds like every 2 weeks he harvests 16 oz of bud from 20 plants that have veg'd for 2 weeks and flower'd for 8 weeks. That's 0.8 oz (22.68 grams) per plant.

Using the ABF SOG method (where he harvests 2 lbs per month in 6.69 square meters), all the marijuana currently grown in California (an estimated 8.6 million pounds annually) could be grown on under 553 acres indoors. A seven-acre parcel such as the one abutting Harborside in Oakland, but with 28,000 square meters of indoor grow space (equivalent to 4,185.35 ABF grows) using the ABF SOG method -- which I'll refer to as an ABF facility -- could produce 4,185 pounds of cannabis every 2 weeks, 8,370 pounds per month, and 108,810 pounds per year. 79 ABF facilities could produce 8,595,990 lbs/year -- nearly 8.6 million pounds -- on under 547 acres of indoor grow space. 79 ABF facilities would continually put out 330,615 pounds of marijuana every 2 weeks.

The ABF SOG method using 1,084.032 kWh every 30 days is 13,189.417344 kWh per year for every 6.69 square meters. Scaled up, each ABF facility would consume 55.2 million kWh (55,202,344.639 kWh) per year for grow lights alone. At industrial rates of $0.1127/kWh, each ABF facility in California would be spending $6.2 million per year ($6,221,304.24) on electricity for grow lights alone.

79 ABF facilities would use a combined 4.36 billion kWh (4.36 million MWh or 4,360 GWh) annually. Scaled up, each ABF facility would need 8,370 1000-watt HPS bulbs to mature clones; 4,185 400-watt HPS bulbs for mothers; 25,112 24-inch 18-watt fluorescent tubes for cuttings; as well as ballasts in order to produce 108,810 pounds per year. Flowering areas in each ABF facility would require 16,741 0.81-square-meter flood trays or equivalent (13,560.5 square meters). Naturally, industrial facilities may require fewer bulbs, or fewer bulbs with higher wattages, and fewer but larger flood trays. (They may also use different growing methods altogether, but right now I'm speculating.)

Priced at $10/oz ($160/lb), each ABF facility producing 108,810 pounds per year would gross $17.409 million/year. (Although about $6.2 million in electrical costs would certainly cut into that.) 79 ABF facilities would gross a combined $1.375 billion/year. Criminals purchasing 8.6 million pounds of marijuana at $10/oz (spending $1.375 billion/year) and selling it for $300/oz ($4800/lb) elsewhere in black markets worldwide would net $4,640 per pound, and would net a combined $39.9 billion million/year (a 2900% return on investment). If criminals bought 8.6 million pounds at $10/oz ($160/lb) and sold it for $150/oz ($2400/lb) on the global black market, they would net $2,240 per pound, for a combined net of $19.264 billion/year (a 1400% return on investment). If they sold it for $50/oz ($800/lb) on the global black market, they would net $640 per pound, for a combined net of $5.5 billion/year (a 400% return on investment). If criminals sold 8.6 million pounds for $20/oz ($320/lb) on the global black market, they would net $160 per pound, for a combined net of $1.376 billion/year (a 200% return on investment).

Priced at $25/oz ($400/lb), each ABF facility would gross $43.524 million/year. 79 ABF facilities would gross a combined $3.438 billion/year. Criminals purchasing 8.6 million pounds of marijuana at $25/oz (spending $3.44 billion/year) and selling it for $300/oz ($4800/lb) elsewhere in black markets worldwide would net $4,400 per pound and would net a combined $37.84 billion/year (a 2750% return on investment).

Priced at $50/oz ($800/lb), each ABF facility would gross $87.04 million/year. 79 ABF facilities would gross a combined $6.876 billion/year. Criminals purchasing 8.6 million pounds of marijuana at $50/oz (spending $6.88 billion/year) and selling it for $300/oz ($4800/lb) elsewhere in black markets worldwide would net $4,000 per pound and would net a combined $34.4 billion/year (a 2500% return on investment).

Priced at $100/oz ($1600/lb), each ABC facility would gross $174.096 million/year. 79 ABF facilities would gross a combined $13.753 billion/year.

Priced at $150/oz ($2400/lb), each ABF facility would gross $261.144 million/year. 79 ABF facilities would gross a combined $20.63 billion/year.

Priced at $175/oz ($2800/lb), each ABF facility would gross $304.668 million/year. 79 ABF facilities would gross a combined $24.068 billion/year.

electricity usage in California

— (back to toc)

In 2002, California generated 272,509 GWh of electricity.(ref) In 2004, Californians used 271,000 GWh.(ref)

Agriculture currently accounts for slightly over 2% of California's $1.85 trillion gross state product. California is the planet's 5th largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities.

tax revenue

— (back to toc)

Say industrial facilities sold weed at $50/oz out of their own weed stores, and local governments added a 100% tax on it ($800/lb): retail weed would be $100/oz, $50/half, $25/quarter, $12.50/eighth, and $3.53/gram. If the commercial marijuana industry in California sold 8.6 million pounds of marijuana with that pricing structure, that would generate $6.88 billion in weed tax revenue statewide. California sales tax rates vary from 8.25% to 10.75%. Many counties and municipalities add on "district taxes." The combined sales tax rate is 8.75% in Sacramento, 9.5% in San Francisco, 9.75% in Los Angeles, and 10.75% in South Gate and Pico Rivera.

Say marijuana had an average sales tax rate of 9.5% in California, and it was based on the price of $50/oz before the weed tax. Selling 8.6 million pounds of cannabis (137.6 million ounces) at $50/oz at 9.5% sales tax would generate $653.6 million in sales tax revenue statewide. If the sales tax was based on the after-weed-tax price, 8.6 million pounds of weed sold at $100/oz with 9.5% sales tax would generate $1.3072 billion in sales tax revenue statewide. Seeds are currently exempt from sales tax in California.

speculation on industrial joints

— (back to toc)

Priced at $50/oz with a 100% weed tax of $50/oz, 400mg joints would be priced at $1.412 each before sales tax. If 8.6 million pounds of marijuana (3,900,894,382 grams) was all sold in joints with 400mg (.4g) of bud per joint, that would be 9.75 billion joints (9,752,235,955), or 487.6 million (487,611,797.75) 20-packs weighing 8 grams for $28.24/pack before sales tax, or 139.3 million (139,317,656.5) less-than-one-ounce legal 70-pack cartons weighing 28 grams for $98.84/carton before sales tax.

California has a population of over 36.9 million people. Say 40% of Californians (14.76 million people) smoked 1 400mg joint a week, that's 14.76 million joints consumed per week, 767.52 million joints per year. Say 5% of Californians (1.845 million people) smoked 2 joints a week, that's 3.69 million joints consumed per week, 191.88 million joints per year. Say 2% of Californians (738,000) smoked 1 joint per day, that's 5.166 million joints per week, 269.37 million joints per year. Say 1% of Californians (738,000) smoked 2 joints per day, that's 10.332 million joints per week, 538.74 million joints per year. Say 1% of Californians (738,000) smoked 4 joints per day, that's 41.328 million joints per week, 1077.48 million joints per year. Altogether that would be 2,844.99 million joints consumed by Californians annually.

If the commercial marijuana industry expects to sell 8.6 million pounds of marijuana in 400mg joint increments, based on the usage above, that would leave 6.9 billion joints (6,907,245,955) that non-Californians would need to buy in California or share with other people. In 2009, LAX had 56,520,843 passengers (people who arrive in, depart from, or transfer through the airport on a given day). In 2009, SFO had 37,338,942 passengers. In 2008, total direct travel spending in California reached $96.7 billion. Los Angeles County receives the most tourism in the state. San Francisco has the 3rd highest number of foreign tourists of any US city. In 2007, over 16 million tourists arrived in San Francisco. If 8 million tourists in San Francisco each bought 70-pack cartons, that would be 560 million joints. If Prop 19 passes and passengers at LAX doubles to 113 million passengers a year, and 50% of those passengers (56.5 million) buy a 20-pack while in California, that's 1.13 billion joints. And say 1/4th of existing LAX passengers (14.13 million) buy a 20-pack while in California, that's 282.6 million joints.

Suppose joints were sold with 1 gram of bud per joint. 20-packs would still be under the legal limit of one ounce. Harborside currently sells 1g pre-rolled joints for $10 on sale. 1 pound is 453.59237 grams. If Harborside bought cannabis from AgraMed for $2,800/lb wholesale, each $10 1g joint sold would net $3.82 in profit, and each pound of 1g joints sold would net $1,735.92 in profit. If Prop 19 passes and one ounce is defined as 28.5 grams, a 20-pack of joints could contain joints with up to 1.425g of marijuana each. If Prop 19 passes, the wholesale price of marijuana would also drop. And perhaps 1g joints could no longer be sold for $10 each.

budget deficit

— (back to toc)

California currently has a $26.3 billion budget deficit. If California companies sold weed at $50/oz with a 100% weed tax ($800/lb) for a total of $100/oz, they would need to produce and sell 32.875 million pounds of marijuana to generate enough weed tax revenue to completely cover the deficit, which is 3.822 times the amount of marijuana currently estimated to be grown annually in California. 302 ABF facilities could accomplish that; it could be done on indoor facilities covering 2,114 acres.

Of course, other indoor methods could be used, as well as growing in greenhouses, and outdoor on farms. I suppose growing inside spheres could also be considered. There are also homegrowers who have tried growing marijuana upside down in Topsy Turvy planters (with poor results as far as I can tell). If Prop 19 passes, terraces and farmscrapers are other methods that could be used to grow cannabis commercially in California.

one vertical grow

— (back to toc)

I've read about a vertical grow in a 5' tall, 5' wide area (technically 62 inches external diameter) with 86 plants in a helix around a single vertical 600-watt Metal Halide bulb. The internal diameter was said to be 4 feet. It reportedly used about 8 3-meter (9.8 feet) lengths of 4" diameter pipe as well as multiple angled double sockets, double socket couplers, and pipe clips. Segments of pipe were arranged in an octagon shaped coil with 4 levels (basically 4 octagons of 4" pipe stacked and spaced vertically). On each level of the octagon, a 45 degree side is missing and in its place is a small segment of pipe attached to a 90 degree joint turned 45 degrees downwards, attached to another small section of pipe, attached to a 45 degree joint attached to the lower level. Here is a picture of it empty and covered in reflective material; it's insulation that comes on a roll that is put behind radiators to reflect heat; the grower uses spray adhesive to stick it on.

[An octagon with a diagonal diameter of 5 feet has 8 sides, each 1.913' (about 23") long. The perimeter of such an octagon would be 15.31ft (183.72"), with an area of 17.68 square feet. Naturally the diameter of the pipe and addition of joints would change those dimensions. Also, the exclusion of 4 octagon sides to allow for drops as well as pipe going back to the reservoir would alter that. 86 plants in 17.68 sq ft is 4.86 plants per sq ft (although perhaps it would be better to describe plants per cubic feet when talking about vertical grows). 86 plants around a single 600w bulb is 6.97w per plant.]

A custom dam was placed into a collar on each level using silicone sealer in order to control the level of the nutrient solution; rotating the collar changes the level of the solution in the grow; the level was set about 0.25" above the bottom of net pots, which were spaced 8 inches apart. Holes in the pipe for the net pots were cut using a hole saw. Each side of each octagon had 2 or 3 holes, angled somewhat towards the center of the octagon, and some holes were present in 45 degree joints. I think the number of plants on each level was something like 21, 22, 21, 22 for a total of 86 plants.

The strain grown in the system was Viking by Positronic which takes 7 weeks to flower. The grower said he doesn't use mothers since cuttings are taken from the plants in the vertical grow about 2 weeks into flower (although earlier he said at week 1 of flowering, he took over 100 cuttings from plants in the vertical grow for the next round). The cuttings used in the grow were placed in 1" rockwool cubes and grown for 3 weeks under fluoros (the number of tubes and wattage used for 86 cuttings is unknown), then placed in the netpots, then filled with hydroton pebbles. The clones were also veg'd for 1 week in the system, although the grower typically doesn't veg in the system.

The nutrient solution contained Vitalink, with an EC of 1.0, and was kept at 74 F. (Although in other grows the grower has used Canna and Ionic. Later on the grower says he typically feeds at an EC of 1.2.) Nutrients were changed every 2 weeks (although later the grower says the system is partially drained once a week and new nutrients added). The grow uses one reservoir, about 10 gallons. The grower didn't keep track of total water consumed.

A fan in the center on the ground blew air upwards. A 4000 liter/hour (1057 GPH) pump was run 24/7. The pump line enters the top level and water circles down back to the reservoir; fast moving water and a waterfall effect contribute aeration. The continuous pump would use electricity. There are 1057 GPH pumps which consume 80 watts. 80 watts / 1000 * 24 * 49 days is 94.08 kWh per harvest. If the grower harvested every 7 weeks, yearly the pump would consume 700.8 kWh. A bypass (a tee with a valve) is used in the reservoir to control the amount of water that comes out of the pump; if the valve is opened some of the output from the pump goes into the res instead of the system. A carbon filter is used to reduce odor. The intake is passive. The air in the room is exchanged twice a minute.

For the first 2 or 3 weeks of flowering, plants are kept on veg nutrients to prevent premature yellowing and leaf drop at the end of the grow. At about week 3 of flowering, the grower trims the lower third of plants to help form buds higher up on the plant. Unwanted leaves and weak shoots are trimmed throughout the grow until about week 4 of flowering. The grower mentions various Kelvin ratings for bulbs: 4000K full spectrum for seedlings/cuttings, 6400K daylight for most of veg, 4000K full spectrum for last week of veg, 3000K red orange for most of flowering, and 10000K UVA blue for the final week. He changed to a growlux HPS in week 3 of flowering since a 3000K bulb was producing too much growth. (I'm not sure of the exact bulb. There is a Sylvania Grolux HPS 600w bulb that outputs 90,000 lumens at 2050K. If that bulb was used for 86 plants, it would be about 1046 lumens per plant. 90,000 lumens in 17.68 sq ft would be 5,090 lumens per sq ft. I talk more about lumens and color temperature in the lighting section below.)

46 oz of bud was harvested from 86 plants after 7 weeks of flowering, yielding 2.17GPW (1304g/600w). That's 15.82 grams per plant after a total of 11 weeks (3 weeks of veg'ing as clones under fluoros, 1 week of veg'ing with the 600w in the system, and 7 weeks of flowering with the 600w in the system). Since the grower veg's clones outside the system and said he usually doesn't veg at all in the system, one harvest every 7 weeks of flowering is 7.4 harvests per year, yielding 340.4 oz per year aka 21.275 lbs/year (9,650.177 g/year). 46 oz from 17.68 sq ft is 2.875 pounds from 17.68 sq ft or 0.1626 pounds per sq ft per harvest. The grower claimed it cost 500 GBP ($797.32 USD) for everything, not including bulb and ballast (and probably not including water/electricity costs).

That vertical grow method is suited for low electricity consumption and high yields per kilowatt hour.

If Prop 19 passes, that vertical method could presumably be used by any homegrower in California.

lights for clones

— (back to toc)

In the vertical grow above, cuttings in 1" rockwool cubes were vegged for 3 weeks under fluorescent lights prior to placement in the vertical grow. (The wattage of the fluorescent lights the grower used is unknown. I suppose they could have been 70w, 58w, 36w, or 18w bulbs; the number of bulbs is unknown. There would need to be at least 86 clones (earlier he wrote he took over 100 cuttings during week 1 of flowering for the next round). I think it's likely those 86 clones took up at least 10 sq ft (2ft x 5ft)), or about 9 clones per sq ft. The clones were later vegged for 1 week in the vertical system, although normally the grower doesn't veg in the system. I think cuttings were veg'd for a total of 4 weeks and flower'd for a total of 7 weeks.

I've read that clones need 375 lumens/sq ft or 400-500 lumens/sq ft. I've also read that a good level for rooting clones/seedlings is about 1,500 lumens/sq ft.

I've read that a 4 foot fluorescent bulb will put out 3,000 lumens, with an effective reach of about one foot.

An 18 inch T8 consumes 15w. A 4 foot T12 consumes 40w.

There are energy saving tubes in Europe: A 2ft T8 consumes 18w. A 4ft T8 consumes 36w. A 5ft T8 consumes 58w. A 6ft T8 consumes 70w. A 8ft T12 consumes 100w.

There are energy saving tubes in the US that require new ballasts: A 2ft T8 consumes 17w. A 4ft T8 consumes 34w. A 5ft T8 consumes 40w. A 8ft T8 consumes 59w. A 4ft T12 consumes 25w.

There are also T5 tubes, which have high lumens-per-watt and can cut energy usage by over 65%. T5 tubes typically last for 20,000 hours (833 days of 24/7 use) vs T8 tubes which last 15,000 hours (625 days of 24/7 use). T5 tubes use only electronic ballasts such as instant start, rapid start, and programmed start, including dimmable ballasts. The following is a comparison of 4ft tube output and consumption:

• 1930-2800 lumens - T12 34W
• 1980-3300 lumens - T12 40W
• 2209 lumens - T5 25W
• 2850-3100 lumens - T5 32W
• 2900 lumens - T5 28W
• 5000 lumens - T5 54W

clone lighting speculation

— (back to toc)

Chapter 3 of the 2006 edition of Marijuana Horticulture: The Indoor/Outdoor Medical Grower's Bible by Jorge Cervantes has information on vegetative growth and clones. It says clones root fastest with 18-24 hours of fluorescent light. It says a fluorescent tube 6 inches above clones supplies the perfect amount of light for clones to root. It says cool white fluorescents are good for rooting clones (I think cool whites are 4100K or 4200k). The book says in 1 to 3 weeks, cuttings should be rooted (I've read that an aero cloner can speed up this process. I've also read that plants grown aeroponically do not experience transplant shock when transplanted.)

Since I don't know the wattage of the fluorescent lights used in the above vertical growing method, here's a scenario.

Suppose a grower in Europe had 9 clones per square foot. Maybe the grower could fit 86 clones in 10 sq ft (5ft x 2ft) under two 5ft T8 58w 4000K tubes (116w). (Above, the grower mentioned 4000K for cuttings.) Each tube puts out 5200 lumens. That would be 10,400 lumens for 10 sq ft or 1040 lumens/sq ft, less if further away from the clones. Suppose the lights were on 24/7 for 3 weeks of vegetative growth. 58w * 2 tubes / 1000 * 24 hours * 21 days is 58.464 kWh. (But that's only 1.349 watts per clone. In the ABF SOG method above, 30 cuttings were placed under 6 18w fluoros (108w) which is 3.6 watts per clone. 86 clones at 3.6 watts per clone would be 310 watts. Although maybe lumens per square foot of clones or lumens per clone is more important than watts per clone.)

In the vertical grow I described above, I believe the grower veg'd cuttings for 3 weeks under fluoros, veg'd for 1 week under 600w, and flower'd for 7 weeks under 600w, and harvested 46 oz after a total of 11 weeks. (But as the ABF SOG method showed, staggering various groups of plants, perhaps under different lights, is a good way to harvest continually.)

58.464 kWh for vegging 86 clones under 2 58w fluoros for 3 weeks (58w * 2 tubes / 1000 * 24 hours * 21 days), plus 100.8 kWh to veg them under 600w for 1 week (600w / 1000 * 24 * 7), plus 352.8 kWh for 7 weeks of flowering (600w / 1000 * 12 * 49 days) is a combined 512.064 kWh over 11 weeks total. A harvest of 46 oz is 1304g. 1304g / 512.064 kWh is a yield of 2.547g/kWh.

But suppose the grower only wanted about 500 lumens/sq ft for vegging under fluoros. One 5ft T8 58w 4000K tube putting out 5,200 lumens over 86 clones in 10 sq ft would be 520 lumens/sq ft. Vegging 24/7 for 3 weeks would be 58w /1000 * 24 hours * 21 days, aka 29.232 kWh.

29.232 kWh for vegging 86 clones under 1 58w fluoro for 3 weeks (58w /1000 * 24 hours * 21 days), plus 100.8 kWh to veg them under 600w for 1 week (600w / 1000 * 24 * 7), plus 352.8 kWh for 7 weeks of flowering (600w / 1000 * 12 * 49 days) is a combined 482.832 kWh over 11 weeks total. A harvest of 46 oz is 1304g. 1304g / 482.832 kWh is a yield of 2.700g/kWh.

Suppose a grower skipped the vegetative growth stage altogether and achieved the same yields, 46oz (1304g) after 7 weeks of flowering. A 600w bulb on 12 hours per day for one year would use 219 kWh per month and 2,628 kWh per year. At $0.1551/kWh for the residential sector in California, that would cost $407.60 per year for electricity for the single grow light. A yearly harvest of 9687.43g (21.357 lbs) / 2,628 kWh is 3.68g/kWh. 21.357 lbs of cannabis at $50/oz ($800/lb) is worth $17,085; at $100/oz ($1600/lb) it's worth $34,171; at $175/oz ($2800/lb) it's worth $59,799; at $300/oz ($4800/lb) on the black market it's worth $102,513. Even at $50/oz, every 7 weeks would produce cannabis valued at $2,300. At $3,520/lb ($220/oz), which is within the range that Harborside currently pays indoor medical marijuana vendors, every 7 weeks would produce medical marijuana worth $10,120.

industrial vertical growing

— (back to toc)

Suppose an industrial facility used the 3.68g/kWh vertical growing method above. And suppose the vertical growing facility consumed 55,202,344.639 kWh annually like the hypothetical ABF facility. Yearly it would produce 203,144,628.27152 grams or 7,165,715.89 ounces or 447,857.243 pounds of cannabis, rather than the 108,810 pounds a hypothetical ABF facility would produce.

447,857.243 pounds of cannabis is worth:

• $4.062 billion ($4,062,892,565.43) at $20/gram
• $2.149 billion ($2,149,714,767) at $4,800/lb aka $300/oz
• $1.433 billion ($1,433,143,178) at $3,200/lb aka $200/oz
• $1.254 billion ($1,254,000,280.75) at $2,800/lb aka $175/oz
• $716.571 million ($716,571,589) at $1,600/lb aka $100/oz
• $358.285 million ($358,285,794.50) at $800/lb aka $50/oz
• $179.142 million ($179,142,897.25) at $400/lb aka $25/oz
• $71.657 million ($71,657,158.90) at $160/lb aka $10/oz
• $7.165 million ($7,165,715.89) at $16/lb aka $1/oz

447,857.243 pounds of cannabis from 15.82 grams per plant (like the vertical grow above) would require 12.8 million cannabis plants (12,841,000.5). If each plant was harvested after 7 weeks, you could do 7.4 harvests per year. Perhaps you could harvest 35,180.8 plants per day. Which would mean you'd have to start 35,180.8 plants 49 days earlier. I haven't figured out how a plant that flowers in 49 days would relate to the fiscal year. Starting all those plants from clones would probably be less work than harvesting all those plants. How many workers would it take to harvest 35,180 plants a day? How many man-hours? How many workers would it required to take 35,180 cuttings a day? How many man-hours? Cuttings would probably be allowed to root in different areas before entering the flowering areas.

The vertical grow above fit 86 plants around 1 600w MH bulb in under 25 square feet. That's 6.97w per plant max in flowering, ignoring the lumens that actually reach each plant. 12,841,000.5 plants / 86 plants is 149,313.96. That's 149,314 600w bulbs. You could probably fit more plants around a 1000w bulb. If 86 plants can fit around 1 600w bulb, could you fit 143 plants around a vertical 1000w bulb? Would anyone try to veg/flower at home or industrially with vertical fluorescent lamps? You could also try for higher yields than 15.82 grams per plant. But depending on the final yield, more watts or a longer grow time would affect your g/kWH ratio. Are cannabis yields of 4g/kWh possible? 5g/kWh? More? If you used 86 plants per 600w MH bulb in a space under 25 square feet, 12,841,000.5 cannabis plants would take up 3,732,848.98 square feet or 85.69 acres of indoor growspace. If you grew 12.8 million cannabis plants, you'd probably *want* to harvest more than 15.82g/plant. If you could get 4lbs/plant, that's 51.2 million pounds. Perhaps g/kWh is not the best metric to use when speaking of industrial cannabis. Gram per work-minute may be a better metric.

5x5 homegrows

— (back to toc)

Prop 19 will allow homegrowers to legally grow in spaces up to 25 square feet. 25 square feet can be represented by various shapes: circles, ovals, polygons such as squares, rectangles, triangles, pentagons, hexagons, etc. A square with that is 5ft x 5ft is 25 square feet. A circle with a 5.64 foot diameter (over 67 inches, or a little over 171 cm) has an area of 25 square feet. How many circular pots could fit in a circle with a diameter of 171 cm? How many circular pots could fit in an area of 25 square feet? How many square pots could fit in an area of 25 square feet? It depends on the size and shape of the pot and the shape of the space. Wolfram Mathworld has an article on circle packing that would be useful in finding the answer. An equilateral triangle with an area of 25 square feet has 3 edges, each 7.598 feet long.

Prop 19 does not specify vertical growspace limits. Suppose the vertical grow I mentioned above was doubled in height. Would someone be able to harvest 92 oz (5.75 lbs) after 7 weeks from 132 plants in a coil around 2 vertical 600w MH bulbs in an area of 15.7 square feet, and 10 feet tall? Would that single grow be able to produce 42.55 lbs/year?

A circle with a 5' diameter (similar to the vertical grow above) has an area of 15.7 square feet. A helix or cylinder with a diameter of 171 cm would have an area under 25 square feet. How many plants could you grow in a helix or cylinder with a diameter of 171 cm? I suppose the vertical grow above is less a helix and more a 3D spirangle, like a vertical hexagonal coil or spring inside an open-top hexagonal prism. Water is pumped continuously through the fat piping segments, and a waterfall effect introduces air bubbles.

Or what about a shape similar to a spiral staircase, with steps or platforms (perhaps cylindrical) extending out from a central column, progressively higher and angled? The platforms could be attached to an outer cylinder for support. I suppose the bulbs could be placed on the interior of an outer cylinder, or perhaps on the inside of the central column. Misters could be located inside the tube steps, or on the central column, or on the interior of the outer cylinder, or on the bottom of tube steps, or at the very top of the structure. Or maybe water could be run through the "steps" and perhaps around the outer cylinder to the step below. Perhaps plants could be grown on a helicoid or spiral ramp. Or directly out of a central column towards lights on the interior of an outer cylinder. But growing around a central light column is probably more efficient than any of that.

California electricity crisis

— (back to toc)

In the years 2000 and 2001, California had an electricity crisis which cost $40 to $45 billion. A shortage of electricity resulted in multiple large-scale blackouts, and one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed. 302 ABF facilities (which could grow enough marijuana enough and generate enough tax revenue to offset California's $26.3 billion budget deficit) would consume a combined 16,667.34 GWh annually.

ABF SOG annual homegrowing

— (back to toc)

Homegrowers in California using the ABF SOG method in 25 square feet (2.32 sq m) would probably be able to harvest at least 11 ounces per month or 8.25 lbs per year (based on (2.32 sq m / 6.69 sq m) * 2lbs/month). Each 25 square foot homegrow would use approximately 375.927 kWh per month (2.32 sq m / 6.69 sq m * 1,084.032 kWh) or 4,511.1287 kWh per year. At $0.1551/kWh for the residential sector, that would be $699.68 in electrical costs per year for grow lights alone. If weed was selling for $300/oz in other US states, a year's harvest of 8.25 lbs would be worth $3,300 per month or $39,600 per year on the black market in the US. California has a population of over 36.9 million people. If 1 million people used the ABF SOG method at home, they would use a combined 4.511 billion kWh (4.511 million MWh, 4511 GWh) per year. That is more than the 4,360 GWh that 79 ABF industrial facilities might use. If 10% of people in California used the ABF SOG method at home (roughly 1/5th of those who voted for Prop 19), those 3.69 million people would use 16.646 billion kWh (16.646 million MWh, 16,646 GWh) per year. They would produce 30.44 million pounds of marijuana, worth $146.124 billion if weed was selling for $300/oz outside California. If a single legal homegrow in California could produce 24lbs per year, five people pooling together could produce 10lbs per month. 10 people pooling together could produce 20lbs per month. 50 people pooling together could produce 100lbs per month.

smuggling out of California into the US

— (back to toc)

Many people would not grow weed at home for resale outside of California, many would buy cheap weed for resale outside of California. If industrial commercial growers were selling weed for $50/oz, someone in California could buy one ounce a day, 11 times a month, spending $550 on weed that could be grown at home in that same month using the ABF SOG method. Each month, that weed would be worth $3,300 in US states where marijuana was selling for $300/oz. They could net $2,750 a month ($33,000 a year) by buying weed in California for $50/oz (in amounts they could legally grow at home in a month), and then traveling outside of California, and selling high there. States without medical marijuana dispensaries and states along the east coast may continue to have street prices at $300/oz. I don't know if it would be more popular to smuggle large amounts infrequently or small amounts frequently. Container size and odor may be big factors in automobile smuggling.

14 states and DC have approved medical marijuana and many dispensaries may be interested in product. A dispensary may not want to buy from California smugglers for $300/oz ($4,800/lb), but if a dispensary sells eighths for $50, they would still be making $12.50 on each eighth sold ($100 on each ounce). Maybe medical marijuana dispensaries in other US states would buy from California smugglers for $100/oz (if weed was $50/oz in California (including weed tax and sales tax), smugglers would still be making $800/lb at that price; 10lbs of pot would net $8,000, 20lbs $16,000, 50lbs $40,000, 100lbs $80,000). If medical marijuana dispensaries in other US states bought from smugglers for $100/oz and sold eighths for $30, dispensaries would be making $17.50 profit on each eighth sold; if they sold eighths for $20, they would be making $7.50 on each eighth sold. If out-of-state dispensaries sold $100/oz California weed for only $5/gram, they would net $1.47 for every gram sold; priced at $10/gram they would net $6.47 for every gram sold. If out-of-state dispensary workers traveled to California and bought weed at $50/oz, then sold it out of their dispensaries for $5/gram, they would net $3.24 on every gram sold; at $10/gram they would net $8.24 on every gram sold. Drug dealers in Reno or Las Vegas or Phoenix or elsewhere might buy weed from California smugglers for $100/oz and sell it for $200/oz. They might also simply drive to California and buy weed for $50/oz and drive back and sell it for $200/oz or $300/oz.

I'll blog more about this topic later.

other potential homegrow yields

— (back to toc)

I've also read about 6 plants growing in 25 square feet, with 4 harvest a year, producing a total of 24lbs/year. If weed was selling for $50/oz ($800/lb) in California, that homegrown weed would be worth $19,200 in California, $38,400 at $100/oz outside California, $76,800 at $200/oz outside California, and $115,200 at $300/oz ($4800/lb) outside California. If corporations in California were selling weed for $50/oz and local governments imposed a 100% tax making it $100/oz, homegrowers could also make money on the black market selling weed for under $100/oz in California.

I've read about a guy who produced 15 pounds in 80 days. That's 68.43 lbs/year. Someone could grow 25 plants in 12" diameter pots in a 5x5 space. I've also read about a guy who put 300 plants in 24 square feet. A homegrower growing in soil outdoors could fit 16 10-gallon pots with a 14.5" top diameter in a 5'x5' area. (Although that doesn't leave much room to grow and branch out. If Prop 19 passes, I wonder if any portions of a plant crossing a 5x5 line would be considered illegal in California.)

high yielding marijuana strains

— (back to toc)

The strain Satori can have 23 to 28% THC, and can produce up to 2.64lbs per plant outdoors. 16 of those in a 5x5 area outdoors could produce 42.24lbs per year. (For the sake of argument. I really don't know how many mature Satori plants could actually fit in a 5x5 area.) That would be worth $33,792 at $50/oz in California, and $202,752 at $300/oz outside California on the black market. The strains Amnesia Haze, Arjan's Haze #1, Early Skunk, and Super Silver Haze can produce up to 3.3lbs per plant outdoors. 16 of any of those strains could produce 52.8lbs per year outdoors. That would be worth $42,240 at $50/oz, $168,960 at $200/oz, and $253,440 at $300/oz outside California on the black market.

Amnesia Haze has won the following awards:

• High Times Cannabis Cup 2004 Cannabis 1st
• Highlife Cup 2008 Bio Coffeeshop Haze 1st
• Highlife Cup 2008 Bio Coffeeshop Haze 2nd
• IC420 Growers Cup 2005 Breeders Sativa 1st
• IC420 Growers Cup 2007 Breeders Sativa 2nd
• IC420 Growers Cup 2010 Breeders Sativa 3rd

(The strain G13 x Amnesia Haze has won the awards: Highlife Cup 2008 Hydro Coffeeshop Haze 2nd and Highlife Cup 2008 Hydro Seebank Haze 2nd).

Arjan's Haze #1 has won the following awards: High Times Cannabis Cup 2004 People's Choice 1st, and High Times Cannabis Cup 2004 Sativa 2nd. (Arjan's Ultra Haze #1 has won the awards: High Times Cannabis Cup 2005 Cannabis 2nd, High Times Cannabis Cup 2006 Cannabis 1st, Highlife Cup 2006 Bio Seedbank Haze 3rd, and IC420 2006 Cannabis 1st. Arjan's Ultra Haze #2 has won the awards: High Times Cannabis Cup 2005 Dutch Hash 3rd, and Spannabis 2005 Indoor Hydro 3rd.)

Early Skunk (Skunk #1 x Early Pearl) has won the following awards: Highlife Cup 2004 Super 1st, Highlife Cup 2004 Outdoor Growshop 3rd, Highlife Cup 2004 Outdoor Coffeeshop 1st, Highlife Cup 2004 Outdoor Seedbank 1st, Highlife Cup 2006 Outdoor Growshop 3rd, and Highlife Cup 2006 Outdoor Coffeeshop 1st. [Skunk #1 won the award High Times Cannabis Cup 1988 Cultivator's Choice 1st. Big Bud x Skunk #1 won the award High Times Cannabis Cup 1989 Mostly Indica 1st. (Early Pearl x Skunk #1) x (Northern Lights #5 x Haze) won the award High Times Cannabis Cup 1989 Mostly Sativa 1st. And several other Skunk strains won awards in the early 90's and late 00's.]

Super Silver Haze has won the following awards:

• High Times Cannabis Cup 1997 Hydro 1st
• High Times Cannabis Cup 1998 Cannabis 1st
• High Times Cannabis Cup 1998 Hydro 1st
• High Times Cannabis Cup 1999 Cannabis 1st
• High Times Cannabis Cup 2000 People's Choice 2nd
• High Times Cannabis Cup 2002 Sativa 3rd (tie)
• Highlife Cup 2002 Bio Coffeeshop 1st
• Highlife Cup 2005 Haze 1st
• Highlife Cup 2005 Haze 3rd
• Highlife Cup 2006 Hydro Coffeeshop Haze 1st
• Highlife Cup 2006 Bio Growshop Haze 1st
• Highlife Cup 2006 Bio Growshop Haze 2nd
• Highlife Cup 2006 Bio Seedbank Haze 1st
• Highlife Cup 2006 Bio Coffeeshop Haze 3rd
• Highlife Cup 2006 Outdoor Coffeeshop 3rd
• High Times Cannabis Cup 2007 Cannabis 3rd
• Highlife Cup 2007 Hydro Growshop Haze 2nd
• Highlife Cup 2007 Hydro Growshop Haze 3rd
• Highlife Cup 2007 Bio Seedbank Haze 1st
• Highlife Cup 2007 Bio Seedbank Haze 2nd
• Highlife Cup 2007 Bio Coffeeshop Haze 3rd
• Highlife Cup 2007 Outdoor Seedbank 2nd
• Highlife Cup 2007 Outdoor Coffeeshop 2nd
• Highlife Cup 2008 Bio Seedbank Haze 3rd
• Highlife Cup 2009 Haze Bio 1st
• Highlife Cup 2009 Best Cannabis 2009 1st

Arjan's Haze #2 is a cross using Super Silver Haze. Also, Super Lemon Haze is Super Silver Haze x Lemon Skunk. Lemon Skunk has won the awards: Highlife Cup 2007 Outdoor Seedbank 1st (DNA), IC420 2008 Indica 3rd (Green House), and Spannabis 2008 Indoor Hydro 1st (DNA).

Super Lemon Haze has won the following awards:

• High Times Cannabis Cup 2008 Cannabis 1st
• High Times Cannabis Cup 2009 Cannabis 1st
• High Times Cannabis Cup 2009 Sativa 2nd
• IC420 2010 Breeders Sativa 1st

Super Lemon Haze placed 1st overall at the HTCC in two consecutive years. The only other strain with that accomplishment is Super Silver Haze, which won High Times Cannabis Cup 1998 Cannabis 1st and High Times Cannabis Cup 1999 Cannabis 1st — and is one of the parents of Super Lemon Haze.

qualities commercial marijuana growers might look for

— (back to toc)

Commercial cannabis companies may sell more volume of award-winning strains. An award-winning strain with high yields and low flowering time would be even more lucrative for them. Other qualities industrial growers may look for in strains include THC %, CBD %, THC/CBD ratio, CBN % (over time THC degrades into CBN), flavor, odor, effect, mold resistance, pest resistance, heat resistance, cold resistance, easy clonability, and the ability to handle high or low levels of nutrients. Not to mention ways they might
genetically engineer strains, much like Monsanto has genetically engineered Roundup-resistant soybeans.

Since there are over 2,000 strains of cannabis, the main way that smaller grow companies would differentiate themselves is in the unique strains they offer. Perhaps large companies would grow the most cost effective and profitable strains, and use their profits to grow as many other popular strains they could in order to eliminate competition. It may be cheaper for large companies to grow high yielding strains and then spray some of their crop with specific flavorings or scents (blueberry, lemon, lime, grapefruit, strawberry, pine, skunk, cotton candy, grape, pixie sticks, etc). If the grapefruit oil used was derived from the fruit, it may affect THC metabolism in the user (like I talked about in this blog post) since grapefruit contains bergamottin, a strong/moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor; kaempferol, a weak CYP2C9 inhibitor; and natsudaidain, a flavonol and weak CYP2C9 inhibitor.

Then again, large grow companies could afford to grow hundreds and hundreds of different strains at a time, something that small growers would be unable to do.

outdoor growing

— (back to toc)

Cannabis grown outdoors often has higher yields than cannabis grown indoors. And cannabis grown outdoors uses no electricity for grow lights. However, outdoor cannabis would be harvested much less frequently than indoor cannabis. Outdoors, cannabis is often harvested in the fall. Although there are autoflowering strains of cannabis. There are some strains that finish in 6 weeks to 45 days, regardless of season.

Industrial cannabis growers wanting to save on electrical costs may grow outside in greenhouses, and be subject to natural sunlight hours and the seasons, but might grow plants that are each up to 12 feet tall, each with over 3.35 pounds of dry bud (or larger). I've read about someone getting 4.2 pounds per plant indoors. I've seen a report of 4.5 pounds from one plant. I've also read about people getting 5 pounds per plant. I've also seen pictures of gigantic trees/bushes in Australia. Those methods are suited for high yields per plant.

other grow methods

— (back to toc)

Other growing methods I've read about include someone using 30w per plant, growing 20-25 plants per square meter with a single 600w. I've also seen mentions online of LP aero (low pressure), HP aero (high pressure), RDWC (recirculating deep water culture), UC (undercurrent), bubble buckets, aquaponics, Krusty buckets, MPB, and stadium/coliseum grows.

greenhouses

— (back to toc)

As of the year 2000 in the Netherlands, greenhouses covered 26,010 acres (10,526 hectares). In Almeria, Spain, greenhouses cover almost 50,000 acres. Currently, the world's largest greenhouse is part of the Eden Project in the UK. It took two-and-a-half years to build all of the structures there. One of the structures, the Tropical Biome, is 180 feet high, 328 feet wide, 656 feet long, and covers 3.9 acres. 3.9 acres is 169,884 square feet, or the equivalent of 6,795.36 legal 5x5 grows.

A greenhouse with 3.9 acres of growspace growing 108,726 cannabis plants (16 plants for every 25 square feet) of the strain Amnesia Haze (yielding 3.3lbs/plant) could produce 358,795 pounds of marijuana per year -- or 4% of California's estimated current marijuana output. At $50/oz ($800/lb) the crop would be worth $287.036 million a year. At $100/oz ($1600/lb) the crop would be worth $574.072 million a year. At $300/oz ($4800/lb) on the black market, the crop would be worth $1.722 billion a year. 25 of those structures with a combined 97.5 acres of growspace could match 100% of California's estimated marijuana output of 8.6 million pounds. At $50/oz ($800/lb) the combined crop would be worth $7.1759 billion a year. At $100/oz ($1600/lb) the combined crop would be worth $14.3518 billion a year. At $300/oz ($4800/lb) on the black market, the combined crop would be worth $43.0554 billion a year. Naturally, people will want to buy strains other than high-yielding ones such as Amnesia Haze, Arjan's Haze #1, Early Skunk, and Super Silver Haze.

Oakland industrial medical marijuana permits

— (back to toc)

On October 5, 2010, the website oaklandcannabisclubs.com published a webpage that said the "September 28, 2010 Public Safety Committee approved recommendations and directed staff to [revise] the RFPA to reflect changes/increases to the points system that will be used to score permit applicants" in Oakland. RFPA refers to Request For Permit Applications To Operate A Medical Cannabis Cultivation Facility Pursuant To Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 5.81. The website also said that staff would change the language to "ensure the public hearing will occur after the examination and the 4 permits have been selected or issued." (emphasis mine)

oaklandcannabisclubs.com mentioned an Oakland City Council meeting on October 5, 2010 at 5:30PM. Details of that October 5 meeting can be found on the City of Oakland calendar, specifically here. That page has links to the agenda, minutes, and video. The Medical Marijuana Cultivation Facility discussion is under file number 10-0044. Earlier in that Oct 5 meeting, the Oakland city council adopted a resolution renewing the city council's declaration of a public health emergency with respect to safe, affordable access to medical cannabis in the city of Oakland, based on a recommendation from the office of the city attorney, found under file number 10-0068.

A PDF report under file number 10-0044 and timestamped September 16, 2010 mentioned that the Oakland City Council adopted Ordinance No. 13033 C.M.S. on July 27, 2010, creating a "regulation and permit process for City designation of four large Collective, Collaborative, and Cooperative Medical Cannabis Cultivators."

(Much of the info in the next paragraph comes from a PDF report under file number 10-0044 and timestamped October 14, 2010 which is an agenda report for the City of Oakland. It described changes to the proposed RFPA. File number 10-0044 does mention that at the October 5 meeting, action was deferred (postponed) to October 26 I believe. This page has information about a Concurrent Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency and Council Community & Economic Development Committee on October 26, 2010, but the meeting's minutes have not been finalized as of the time of this blog post. However, this page has information about a Public Safety Committee meeting on October 26, 2010 which included a report and recommendation regarding Medical Marijuana Cultivation Facility -- but the meeting's minutes have not been finalized as of the time of this blog post.)

dates concerning Oakland industrial medical marijuana permits

— (back to toc)

Applications and required documents are due December 2, 2010 by 4PM (previously November 24). Required documents include the address of the proposed facility; articles of incorporation and bylaws previously filed with the state of California; "live scan submission for all business partners and managers operating the facility"; business plan; a building and construction timeline with a copy of design plans; a security plan; a fire prevention plan which includes a detailed description of fire prevention, suppression and alarm systems; an environmental plan; proof of capitalization such as Letters of Credit or bank statements; proof of $2 million worth of liability insurance; and a non-refundable $5,000 application fee. Bonus categories include labor and employment practices, environmental mitigations, product safety, and community benefits (which will be assessed in phase 2).

First round scoring and ranking of applicants will take place January 14, 2011 (previously December 17, 2010). The top 10 applicants (previously top 6) will be notified on January 17, 2011 (previously December 20, 2010) and proceed to phase 2. In phase 2, each finalist will have to designate a member applicant who is a managing member of the applicant's collective to take a Cannabis Cultivation Facility exam which will test their familiarity with California law, Oakland law, and the Attorney General's guidelines on medical marijuana. The phase 2 exam is scheduled for January 19, 2011. Exam scores will be added to the original score total and 4 companies will be selected based on total points.

The permit awardees will be notified January 26, 2011. The 4 awardees will then go through a public hearing process scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2011 where the community can voice concerns, offer support, and provide other considerations for potential permit conditions. Permits will be issued in February 2011.

negative impacts of homegrowing in Oakland

— (back to toc)

A PDF report under file number 10-0044 and timestamped September 23, 2010 is Ordinance No. 13033 C.M.S. revised September 23, 2010. In the original ordinance ordained by the Oakland City Council in July, the council found that:

"the cultivation and processing of medical cannabis in the City of Oakland has caused and is causing ongoing impacts to the community. These impacts include damage to buildings containing indoor medical cannabis cultivation facilities, including improper and dangerous electrical alterations and use, inadequate ventilation leading to mold and mildew, increased frequency of home-invasion robberies and similar crimes, and that many of these impacts have fallen disproportionately on residential neighborhoods. These impacts have also created an increase in response costs, including code enforcement, building, fire, and police staff time and expenses."

Surely if such negative impacts were happening as a result of Prop 215 and SB 420, then the statewide impact of Prop 19 would be even greater. If Prop 19 passes, everyone in the state of California can legally homegrow without a doctor's recommendation or patient card. Although, one might argue that if marijuana was legal, fewer growers would be hesitant to consult licensed electricians, licensed ventilation experts, etc. Or perhaps less people would homegrow since people would be able to buy in stores. I suppose the number of homegrowers might depend on the retail price of marijuana in weed stores. But medical marijuana is already legal in California, and yet those kinds of things still happen. Why would it be any different after Prop 19 passes? Like I blogged about in mid-September, Fresno County banned outdoor medical marijuana growing for 45 days due to a growhouse robbery and a shooting. Does anyone expect that incidents of growhouse robberies will decrease if Prop 19 passes? The marijuana inside growhouses is still worth $300/oz out of state. Smuggling marijuana out of California will still be lucrative for any homegrower, anyone buying marijuana in a weed store, or anyone else able to obtain marijuana by whatever means necessary.

And like I blogged about in late September, the city of Rancho Cordova has a measure on the ballot called Personal Cannabis Cultivation Tax, and city spokeswoman Nancy Pearl said if Prop 19 passes cops and firefighters and building and safety people will have to work more and costs will go up, and the homegrow tax is meant to pay for threats to neighborhoods from potential traffic, crime, stench, nuisances, as well as city code enforcement. (Although some have said that the proposed homegrow tax is prohibitively high and intended to dissuade homegrowing in general.)

California cities and counties that currently allow medical marijuana dispensaries

— (back to toc)

On October 25, 2010, John Hoeffel wrote in the Los Angeles Times that according to the advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, only 10 out of 58 counties (17%) and only 37 out of 481 cities (7.7%) in California allow medical marijuana dispensaries. Maybe the number would be similar for legal weed stores. If Prop 19 passes and those numbers stay the same concerning legal weed stores, that would mean that a black market for weed would still exist in 83% of California counties and 92.3% of California cities (not to mention the black market for minors which would exist in 100% of California counties and cities). Many marijuana users would travel to green cities to buy weed, but they couldn't legally buy over an ounce at a time, and they certainly couldn't legally transport over an ounce at a time. Unless perhaps if they had a patient card. With the way California has set things up, if Prop 19 passes, loopholes abound. Although that may be one motivation for writing Prop 19 or for some people voting for it. Criminals in California smuggling marijuana out of state and selling it on the black market, and coming back and spending money means more money being spent in California.

Perhaps the low availability of dispensaries contributes to homegrow related problems. But Oakland has several medical marijuana dispensaries, including the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the San Francisco Bay area, Harborside. Yet the Oakland City Council found it necessary to adopt an ordinance recognizing the negative impact of medical marijuana growing in residential neighborhoods. (Although an argument could be made that the city council was mainly interested in tax revenue and needed some basis for the ordinance.)

On July 19, 2010, the AP said that Oakland City Council members Rebecca Kaplan and Larry Reid proposed the ordinance "largely as a public safety measure." They also said they wanted Oakland to cash in on the medical marijuana industry. A week before, Oakland laid off 80 police officers to save money. The Oakland police department said in the last 2 years, marijuana grows have been linked to 8 robberies, 7 burglaries, and 2 murders. From 2006 to 2009 in Oakland there was a dramatic rise in the number of electrical fires, and the Oakland fire department blamed the increase in part on indoor marijuana grows with improperly wired lights and fans. I think it's highly likely that burglaries, robberies, and murders linked to marijuana grows will only increase in California if Prop 19 passes. People might ask "Who robs a house and murders someone for liquor?" But marijuana will still be worth $300/oz outside of California. It may even continue to be worth $300/oz on the black market in California, which will include all minors, and will possibly include 83% of California counties and 92.3% of California cities.

Patient homegrowers are selling to Harborside and other dispensaries. How much longer will that continue? If Prop 19 passes, will it stop soon after? Perhaps the existence of dispensaries that buy product from patient homegrowers encourages homegrowing and exacerbates homegrow related problems. The passage of Prop 19 would certainly encourage homegrowers. If Prop 19 passes, can and will cities and counties ban homegrowing in their area, or prohibitively tax homegrowers out of the way? If dispensaries will no longer pay $3,000 to $4,000/lb ($187.50 to $250/oz) for indoor grown medical marijuana, many homegrowers will find people that will buy for that price, specifically, people out of state on the black market or perhaps minors. But criminal organizations in and out of California will be competing with them.

I wrote most of this blog post before reading the following study. Now that I've gotten my personal speculation out of the way...

RAND's estimated cost of production for legal marijuana

— (back to toc)

In July 2010, the RAND Corporation put out a working paper by Jonathan Caulkins entitled Estimated Cost of Production for Legalized Cannabis. The full PDF document can be found here (right click, save as).

It attempts to estimate production and processing costs for indoor/outdoor cannabis cultivation in a post-legalization environment. The paper says commercial production of cannabis for general use is not legal anywhere on Earth so inferences are based on on "imperfect analogs supplemented by spare and unsatisfactory data of uncertain provenance." It said "this exercise should be taken with more than a few grains of salt." Caulkins said wholesale prices for marijuana after legalization "could be dramatically lower than they are today, quite possibly a full order of magnitude lower than are current prices."

The paper says there are two kinds of analogies regarding commercial marijuana production: the legal production of agricultural products somewhat similar to cannabis, and illegal cannabis production. Caulkins said extrapolation from either is "fraught with conjecture and reliance on grey literature rather than the scientific literature."

Production estimates in the paper are given for three kinds of growing: 5x5 personal hydroponic homegrows with lights, a 1,500 square foot residential house used entirely as a commercial operation with indoor grow lights, and greenhouse based commercial growing.

The paper says it's possible to estimate the cost of materials and consumables since grey literature contains detailed descriptions of how to grow marijuana, and price quotes are readily available online for materials and equipment.

Under the RAND Corporation's supervision, the Carnegie Mellon Heinz student Josh Swiss produced a cost estimate for a hypothetical 5x5 hydro grow allowed by Prop 19. He said that nutrients and growing medium would total about $300 per harvest. Grow lights were projected to be 40 watts per sq ft, and assuming 30 days of 24/7 light for vegetative growth, and 60 days of 12/12 light for flowering, it would cost $200 per harvest at $0.14/kWh. Costs of durable items apart from bulbs such as pumps, fans, tubing, air stones, sheers, etc came to $1,250 to $1,500; although if they were used for 4 harvest per year for 5 years, it would be $60 to $75 per harvest. Bulbs with an assumed life expectancy of 12 months cost $27.50 per harvest. Swiss estimated costs per harvest around $600.

Yield estimates in the RAND study were based on a 2006 study by Toonen et al. of 77 illegal indoor grow ops in the Netherlands. It found an average yield of 1.2 ounces of sellable bud per plant per harvest, and a median planting density of 1.4 plants per square foot. (The paper notes that one source of confusion is whether yields are quoted per total growing area sq ft or flowering area sq ft) The paper said that comes out to 2.625 pounds per 25 square feet per harvest, or 0.0105 pounds per square foot per harvest. The paper said the materials/consumables cost about $225/lb.

In the 5ft diameter 4-level vertical grow I described above, where the grower used 1 600w MH bulb for 17.68 square feet (33.94 watts/sq ft), the grower claimed it cost $797.32 (500 GBP) for everything. 86 plants produced an average of 15.82 grams of bud each. Assuming clones were flowered immediately, he harvested as much as 3.68g/kWh after 7 weeks which is 7.4 harvests per year. (Although that max rate ignores vegging cuttings under fluoros. (But cuttings can be bought for $12 per stem at Harborside. However, 86 cuttings at $12 each is $1,032. Mothers can sometimes be found at Harborside in prices ranging for $40, $50, $60, $80.) And the 7 weeks refers to flowering time only, not total time of vegetative growth plus flowering growth which was 11 weeks. But the flowering light is the bottleneck in that method.) 46 oz from 17.68 sq ft is 2.875 pounds from 17.68 sq ft or 0.1626 pounds per sq ft per harvest, over 15 times the rate of 0.0105 pounds per sq ft per harvest mentioned in the RAND working paper. 86 plants in 17.68 sq ft is 4.86 plants per sq ft (on four vertical levels). 2.875 pounds of cannabis produced by spending $797.32 for materials (except for light and ballast) is $277.33/lb for the first harvest, also ignoring electrical costs. Additional harvests would use more nutrients, possibly new net pots and hydroton pebbles, but most of the equipment would be reusable.

The RAND paper said a well-run 5x5 hydro grow with 4 harvest a year might yield 10.5 lbs/year, with costs of $225/lb ($150/lb for other factors and $75/lb for electricity). The paper says those costs are consistent with costs described in a Dutch study described by Jorge Cervantes in 2006. That study described 3 harvests:

• 8.4 lbs harvested from 128.6 sq ft, costing $5,647
• a $8,220 investment that doubled the area and improved methods, with a yield of 27.6 lbs
• 30.2 lbs harvested in the full space with an incremental cost of $1,882

The RAND paper says that works out to $238/lb. If the first 2 harvests are investments, the 3rd crop only cost $62/lb.

The RAND paper said if only natural light is used in greenhouse growing, electricity costs could be essential zero unless artificial lighting is used to control flowering.

The paper said labor hours per pound produced appear to vary enormously depending on skill level, individual traits of growers, and scale of operation. Caulkins said there are reasons to believe that legalization could "positively affect labor productivity in all three respects." More people would be full time workers instead of hobbyists, companies would have new hire training, workers would go into the industry based on natural ability and affinity while today growers are mainly willing to produce illegal drugs and are not necessarily people with the most growing skill. The paper said marijuana legalization would "presumably allow economies of scale and better information exchange." Consultants could sell their expertise more easily than today.

The paper said gains in efficiency may depend on how the federal government responds. The paper also imagines that industry wages would fall to the levels of other agricultural workers.

In late September I blogged about how nearly 40 workers at Marjyn Investments LLC signed up with Teamsters Local 70 Union in Oakland. Within 15 months their wages will increase from $18/hr to $25.75/hr.

The RAND paper said "we did run across a number of statements in the grey literature suggesting that $20 to $25 per hour might not be atypical of cash payments." Agricultural workers in California working with legal crops are typically paid no more than $10/hour. Caulkins said O*NET says the average wage for California nursery/greenhouse workers is $8.60/hour.

The RAND study cites 3 studies which suggest about 100 grams of marijuana (3.5 oz) is consumed per users in a year. Then it says that a single 5x5 homegrow could provide enough weed for about 50 average cannabis consumers. The National Garden Association claims that 83% of households in the US participate in some kind of DIY indoor/outdoor lawn and gardening activity.

The paper also assumes that one person working full-time could manage a 1,300 sq ft grow op in a 1,500 sq ft house. If they harvested 0.105 pounds per square foot per harvest, and harvested 4 times a year, that's 546 pounds of marijuana per house per year. The paper assumes 2,000 labor-hours per work-year. Excluding harvesting/processing time, that means labor productivity of about 4 hours per pound produced, or $40/lb at a rate of $10/hour.

546 pounds of marijuana would be worth $2,620,800 at $300/oz on the black market.

For greenhouse scenarios, the RAND paper assumes a harvest of 0.2 pounds per square foot per year. Jorge Cervantes says a greenhouse can still make 3 harvests per year, vs 4 per year indoor. (More than 4 harvests per year is certainly possible indoors; see the ABF SOG method I described above where the grower harvested 1 pound every 2 weeks in a 72 square foot area).

Estimates for labor costs for hydroponic greenhouse tomatoes and lettuce come to about $2 to $5 per square foot per year, aka $10 to $25 per pound at the rate of 0.2 pounds per square foot per year.

Regarding rent for growhouses, RAND says "marijuana growers would gravitate toward cheaper than average housing."

The paper says typical greenhouse construction costs are $5 to $12 per sq ft. The Ohio State University Extension gives budgets for greenhouses growing tomatoes and lettuce hydroponically. Structures and equipment to control the environment for a 12,288 sq ft greenhouse are about $50,000. Costs for growing/delivery equipment for tomatoes are about $20,000, for an amortized annual fixed cost of $1.97/sq ft for tomatoes.

The RAND study said marijuana greenhouses may be more vulnerable to burglaries. The paper says it's unclear if property insurance policies would cover the theft of cannabis, or whether greenhouse operators would willingly call police in the case of theft.

The paper contains a table with estimates for production costs for 3 kinda of indoor grows.

The paper also says that yields of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds of dry cannabis material per acre per year can be expected outdoors, with 575 pounds of it bud.

The authors of the paper spoke to an outdoor grower who gave detailed descriptions of their last 8 growing seasons on a hillside. From 2001 to 2009, thee grower harvested about 2.5 lbs per plant, each plant was given 62.5 sq ft (about 7.9ft square), and yields of 1,742 pounds per acre were achieved.

The paper assumes 9 sq ft per plant, roughly 2,500 pounds per acre, and 4,840 plants per acre (43,560 sq ft). If 1.9 oz of bud was harvested per plant, one acre would produce 575 pounds of bud. The paper says "If the THC content per unit weight is even one-quarter in leaves what it is in buds" (for example 2.5% THC by weight in leaves vs 10% THC by weight in bud) "then the leaves and other materials would contain almost half (46%) of the total THC produced." The paper also described resin yields in Morocco, Mexico, and South Africa.

The paper says if marijuana production costs were $6,000/acre (similar to lettuce or asparagus), the cost to mass produce marijuana would be about $2.50/lb. If the cost of marijuana production was similar to the rate mentioned in hemp studies, "then the implied price would fall below $1/lb."

The study said the production cost of marijuana "would be an order of magnitude lower than the low end of commercial grade prices per pound now seen in the U.S." The paper says commercial grade cannabis legally farmed in California "could out-compete commercial grade marijuana produced illegally in Mexico" or elsewhere in the US where growing is illegal.

The paper says Gieringer speculated in 1994 that the legal price of weed could drop by 99% in the absence of taxation.

The study also discusses industrial THC extraction from non-bud plant material. In 2006, Jorge Cervantes described agitating 100 kg of leaf for 14 hours in a washing machine filled with ice water, supposedly yielding 3 kg of resin.

If you have the time, be sure to read all 29 pages of the working paper.

It says low production costs "might allow California grown sinsemilla to dominate the U.S. sinsemilla market even with a $800 per pound tax." If California could collect taxes on weed about to be illegally smuggled out of state, it would generate more tax revenue than taxes on sales for consumption within California. If Prop 19 passes, weed prices might drop throughout the lower 48 states. Drug smuggling out of California and low prices "might attract a response from the federal government."

The paper says 4,400 acres of crop land with yield rates of 2,500 pounds per acre could supply the 5,000 metric ton US market for marijuana. The paper says suppose all 5,000 metric tons were produced by indoor growhouses with an annual yield of 546 pounds per house. About 20,000 houses in California could supply the entire US.

In summary, the paper said "it is worth stating again that this was an extraordinarily speculative undertaking", saying "hard data reported in refereed scientific journals are all but non-existent."