Chemdawg: Cultivar Profile With Sources, Lineage Claims and Lab Data Limits
Chemdawg, also spelled Chemdog, is a cannabis cultivar with a well-told origin story. See what is documented, spelling and cut names, lab terpene data and why no potency is given.
Content last updated . This page has not been medically reviewed.
Documented data at a glance
Source status: Includes documented laboratory measurements. Names and market labels do not guarantee composition or effects, and a batch result is not a typical value for the cultivar.
- Preferred name
- Chemdawg
- Aliases
- Chem 4, Chem 91, Chem Dog B, Chem's Sister, Chemdog
- Name conflicts
- Spelling varies (Chemdog official, Chemdawg common); several related cuts; origin venue differs between accounts (Deer Park vs Deep Creek, Indiana).
- Breeder attribution
- Grown and spread by a breeder known as Chemdog since 1991, from seeds in flower bought at a Grateful Dead concert (anecdotal media accounts). (Reported)
- Retail label
- Hybrid (retail label) (a marketing category, not a measurement)
- Cannabinoid dominance
- THC-dominant
Reported lineage
- 13 seeds from a bag of 'Dog Bud' became Chem 91, Chem's Sister and Chem Dog B; earlier ancestry not documented. (Reported; source: Leafly News. The story of DogDaze, the Chemdog strain that never was (cannabis media; secondary source). Read 2026-10-22.)
- Seeds from a 1991 Grateful Dead concert in Indiana; flower said to come from Colorado. (Reported; source: Lopez A. Bud Backstories: The Origin of Chemdawg. Fat Nugs Magazine (cannabis media; anecdotal secondary source). Read 2026-10-22.)
Laboratory measurements: cannabinoids
Maryland (6 analytes)
dataset (Maryland flower, N=18 samples; test dates 2017-11-25 to 2018-10-05; median of 17 samples with a value). Laboratory: lab ID 1201 (16); lab ID 1101 (1); lab ID 706 (1). Dates: 2017-11-25 to 2018-10-05. Method: not reported in dataset. Source: Cannlytics. cannabis_results dataset, data/md/md-results-latest.csv (Maryland lab/regulator results, 105,013 rows; flower rows product_type 'Buds'; test dates 2017-12 to 2023-12). Licence CC BY 4.0. Read 2026-10-22.
| Analyte | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CBDA | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| CBG | 0.07 | 0 | 0.1 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0.01 |
| Delta-9 THC | 0.53 | 0 | 1.12 |
| THCA | 15.46 | 13.67 | 21.42 |
Values are percent by weight as inferred from the dataset (the source does not label units per column). The median is calculated from the dataset; minimum and maximum are reported.
Hawaii (5 analytes)
dataset (Hawaii flower, N=25 samples; test dates 2018-02-23 to 2021-05-05; median of 25 samples with a value). Laboratory: not reported in dataset (25). Dates: 2018-02-23 to 2021-05-05. Method: not reported in dataset. Source: Cannlytics. cannabis_results dataset, data/hi/hi-results-latest.csv (Hawaii, 13,485 rows; flower rows product_type 'Flower Lot'). Licence CC BY 4.0. Read 2026-10-22.
| Analyte | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | 0 | 0 | 0.37 |
| CBDA | 0.04 | 0 | 0.09 |
| CBG | 0.12 | 0.1 | 0.15 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total cannabinoids | 18.4 | 14.6 | 27.5 |
Values are percent by weight as inferred from the dataset (the source does not label units per column). The median is calculated from the dataset; minimum and maximum are reported.
Nevada (7 analytes)
dataset (Nevada flower, N=18 samples; test dates 2020-01-27 to 2021-07-07; median of 18 samples with a value). Laboratory: CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC (15); G3 LABS LLC (3). Dates: 2020-01-27 to 2021-07-07. Method: not reported in dataset. Source: Cannlytics. cannabis_results dataset, data/nv/nv-results-latest.csv (Nevada, 153,064 rows; flower rows product_type 'Marijuana Flowers/Buds'; test dates 2020-01 to 2023-12). Licence CC BY 4.0. Read 2026-10-22.
| Analyte | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | 0 | 0 | 0.08 |
| CBDA | 0.07 | 0 | 0.13 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Delta-9 THC | 0.775 | 0.58 | 1.89 |
| THCA | 31.455 | 25.47 | 32.94 |
| Total cannabinoids | 32.325 | 26.17 | 34.15 |
| Total THC | 28.375 | 23.03 | 30.03 |
Values are percent by weight as inferred from the dataset (the source does not label units per column). The median is calculated from the dataset; minimum and maximum are reported.
| Analyte | Value | Scope | Sample / batch | Laboratory | Test date | Method | Reported or calculated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBC | 0.004 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| CBD | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| CBG | 0.003 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| CBN | 0.002 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| THC (Δ9-THC) | 0.242 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
| THCV | 0.002 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) | reported |
Each row describes the stated sample or dataset only. Composition varies between batches. Sources are listed in the page references.
Laboratory measurements: terpenes
Nevada (8 terpenes)
dataset (Nevada flower, N=18 samples; test dates 2020-01-27 to 2021-07-07; median of 15 samples with a value). Laboratory: CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC (15); G3 LABS LLC (3). Dates: 2020-01-27 to 2021-07-07. Method: not reported in dataset. Source: Cannlytics. cannabis_results dataset, data/nv/nv-results-latest.csv (Nevada, 153,064 rows; flower rows product_type 'Marijuana Flowers/Buds'; test dates 2020-01 to 2023-12). Licence CC BY 4.0. Read 2026-10-22.
| Terpene | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| alpha-Bisabolol | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.31 |
| alpha-Humulene | 0.31 | 0.16 | 1.65 |
| beta-Caryophyllene | 1.02 | 0.8 | 1.8 |
| beta-Myrcene | 0.68 | 0.51 | 0.93 |
| beta-Pinene | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.08 |
| D-Limonene | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.26 |
| Linalool | 0.1 | 0.06 | 0.13 |
| Total terpenes | 2.57 | 1.92 | 4.35 |
Percent by weight as inferred from the dataset. The median is calculated; minimum and maximum are reported. A terpene is listed only when the dataset gave a value above zero.
| Terpene | Value | Scope | Sample / batch | Laboratory | Test date | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| alpha-bisabolol | 1 mg/g (mean; SD 0.3) | dataset | 6 samples labeled with this cultivar name, submitted by one dispensary | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City, California | 2015-02 to 2016-02 | Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; peaks confirmed by GC-MS |
| beta-caryophyllene | 6.4 mg/g (mean; SD 1.8) | dataset | 6 samples labeled with this cultivar name, submitted by one dispensary | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City, California | 2015-02 to 2016-02 | Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; peaks confirmed by GC-MS |
| beta-pinene | 0.8 mg/g (mean; SD 0.2) | dataset | 6 samples labeled with this cultivar name, submitted by one dispensary | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City, California | 2015-02 to 2016-02 | Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; peaks confirmed by GC-MS |
| endo-fenchyl-alcohol | 0.5 mg/g (mean; SD 0.3) | dataset | 6 samples labeled with this cultivar name, submitted by one dispensary | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City, California | 2015-02 to 2016-02 | Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; peaks confirmed by GC-MS |
| humulene | 2.2 mg/g (mean; SD 0.6) | dataset | 6 samples labeled with this cultivar name, submitted by one dispensary | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City, California | 2015-02 to 2016-02 | Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; peaks confirmed by GC-MS |
| limonene | 4.2 mg/g (mean; SD 1.1) | dataset | 6 samples labeled with this cultivar name, submitted by one dispensary | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City, California | 2015-02 to 2016-02 | Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; peaks confirmed by GC-MS |
| linalool | 0.9 mg/g (mean; SD 0.2) | dataset | 6 samples labeled with this cultivar name, submitted by one dispensary | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City, California | 2015-02 to 2016-02 | Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; peaks confirmed by GC-MS |
| myrcene | 3 mg/g (mean; SD 3.2) | dataset | 6 samples labeled with this cultivar name, submitted by one dispensary | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City, California | 2015-02 to 2016-02 | Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; peaks confirmed by GC-MS |
| Camphene | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| d-Limonene | 0.003 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Guaiol | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Isopulegol | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Linalool | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Nerolidol | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| α-Humulene | 0.002 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| α-Pinene | 0 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| β-Caryophyllene | 0.005 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| β-Myrcene | 0.003 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| β-Pinene | 0.001 as printed in S1 Table (column header "% dry wt"; magnitudes look like mass fractions, e.g. Δ9-THC 0.263, so unit not independently verified) | single batch (one commercial cured flower sample) | S1 Table sample #12 | Rio Grande Analytics, Las Cruces NM (analysis space per paper competing-interest statement); authors New Mexico State University | not reported in source | GC-FID (nitrogen carrier) |
| Endo-fenchyl-alcohol | 0.5 mg/g | dataset (N=6 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.3 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated) | not reported in source | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. | not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS |
| Humulene | 2.2 mg/g | dataset (N=6 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.6 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated) | not reported in source | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. | not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS |
| Limonene (peak may overlap with β-phellandrene) | 4.2 mg/g | dataset (N=6 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 1.1 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated) | not reported in source | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. | not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS |
| Linalool | 0.9 mg/g | dataset (N=6 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.2 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated) | not reported in source | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. | not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS |
| Myrcene | 3 mg/g | dataset (N=6 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 3.2 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated) | not reported in source | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. | not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS |
| α-Bisabolol | 1 mg/g | dataset (N=6 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.3 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated) | not reported in source | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. | not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS |
| β-Caryophyllene | 6.4 mg/g | dataset (N=6 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 1.8 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated) | not reported in source | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. | not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS |
| β-Pinene | 0.8 mg/g | dataset (N=6 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.2 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated) | not reported in source | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. | not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS |
| Endo-fenchyl-alcohol | 0.5 mg/g | dataset (N=6 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.3) | dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=6) | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Union City, CA) | samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 (analysis date not reported) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS; methanol extraction of 1 g |
| Humulene | 2.2 mg/g | dataset (N=6 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.6) | dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=6) | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Union City, CA) | samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 (analysis date not reported) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS; methanol extraction of 1 g |
| Limonene | 4.2 mg/g | dataset (N=6 dried flower samples; mean, SD 1.1) | dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=6) | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Union City, CA) | samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 (analysis date not reported) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS; methanol extraction of 1 g; limonene peak overlaps beta-phellandrene in cultivars containing alpha-phellandrene |
| Linalool | 0.9 mg/g | dataset (N=6 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.2) | dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=6) | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Union City, CA) | samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 (analysis date not reported) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS; methanol extraction of 1 g |
| Myrcene | 3 mg/g | dataset (N=6 dried flower samples; mean, SD 3.2) | dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=6) | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Union City, CA) | samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 (analysis date not reported) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS; methanol extraction of 1 g |
| α-Bisabolol | 1 mg/g | dataset (N=6 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.3) | dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=6) | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Union City, CA) | samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 (analysis date not reported) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS; methanol extraction of 1 g |
| β-Caryophyllene | 6.4 mg/g | dataset (N=6 dried flower samples; mean, SD 1.8) | dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=6) | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Union City, CA) | samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 (analysis date not reported) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS; methanol extraction of 1 g |
| β-Pinene | 0.8 mg/g | dataset (N=6 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.2) | dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=6) | Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Union City, CA) | samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016 (analysis date not reported) | GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS; methanol extraction of 1 g |
Chemdawg, also written Chemdog, is the name of a cannabis cultivar (commonly called a strain). Its origin is a popular story told in cannabis media, so this page separates the story from anything documented. It is information only. For how these pages work, see how cultivar profiles work.
Evidence labels used here: marketing claim means a statement from sellers or media without independent testing; insufficient evidence means too little to judge; Proper evidence not found means we looked and found nothing usable.
Identity, aliases and the origin story
A strain encyclopedia says "Chemdog" is the official name and "Chemdawg" the common spelling, and that the cultivar was grown and spread by a breeder known as Chemdog since 1991.[1] Related names that appear in media include Chem 91, Chem's Sister, Chem Dog B and Chem 4.[2][3]
The story, as two media articles tell it, starts at a Grateful Dead concert in Indiana in 1991. Two men sold a flower they called "Dog Bud," a man named Greg bought some, later received more by mail, and found 13 seeds in one bag. Those seeds became the plants later called Chem 91, Chem's Sister and Chem Dog B.[2][3] One article adds that the first meeting happened on June 6, 1991 in Deer Park, Indiana, and that the flower had come from Colorado.[3] The other article gives the venue as "Deep Creek, Indiana."[2] Venue names differ, and the story rests on personal accounts. We found no contemporaneous record, so confidence in the details is "reported."
Chem 4 is described as a later line that began when seeds were returned to one of the original sellers around 2006.[3] This means "Chemdawg" can point to several related cuts, not one fixed plant. See cultivar names, aliases and naming conflicts.
Lineage before the Indiana bag is not documented in the sources we could read. The encyclopedia entry lists descendants, such as OG Kush and Sour Diesel, but those are claims about children and not evidence of parents; see OG Kush and Sour Diesel.
What genetic testing found
A study of dispensary samples used DNA markers on 122 samples from 30 strains in three US states.[4] It included seven samples under variants of the Chemdawg name. Their within-name genetic similarity score was 0.42, in the upper part of the study range, which ran from about minus 0.22 to 0.68, and the authors noted that most strains still contained at least one genetic outlier.[4] In other words, the name was fairly consistent in that set but not guaranteed.
Classification
The encyclopedia calls Chemdawg a hybrid.[1] That is a retail label. Large chemistry work on tested products found commercial labels do not consistently align with measured chemistry.[5] See indica vs sativa vs hybrid.
Cannabinoid dominance: in the one laboratory dataset below, all samples were high-THC (more than 10 percent THC by a lab method; individual results not shown), so Chemdog samples there were THC-dominant.[6]
Appearance
We did not find a readable, non-promotional source with an appearance description, so none is given.
Aroma and measured terpenes
Reported aroma: a distinct diesel-like, pungent and chemical scent.[1] The origin article says the original flower tasted "chemmy," which today people might call diesel or gassy.[3]
Measured data come from one California laboratory dataset of samples a single medical dispensary submitted between February 2015 and February 2016, tested by gas chromatography under the client's cultivar names.[6] For six samples labeled Chemdog (milligrams per gram, mean plus or minus standard deviation), beta-caryophyllene was largest at 6.4 plus or minus 1.8, then limonene at 4.2 plus or minus 1.1, myrcene at 3.0 plus or minus 3.2, humulene at 2.2 plus or minus 0.6, alpha-bisabolol at 1.0 plus or minus 0.3 and linalool at 0.9 plus or minus 0.2.[6] The authors grouped it with caryophyllene-dominant cultivars and reported large variation between Chemdog samples, mainly in myrcene.[6] The very wide spread for myrcene (standard deviation larger than the mean) shows how different batches under one name can be. See beta-caryophyllene.
Potency
Verified batch data was not available, and composition varies. We checked the terpene dataset, the genetic study and the encyclopedia entry; none gave a cannabinoid result tied to a named batch, laboratory and date. Percentages on seller pages are not independent lab findings, so none are repeated. See how to read a cannabis COA.
Reported experiences
The encyclopedia says consumers can expect a cerebral experience with a heavy body feeling and warns that it tends to be potent.[1] This is editorial description and anecdote. It is not controlled research, and a "potent" label has no verified number behind it here.
Research
Proper evidence not found for clinical research on Chemdawg by name. Our literature search for the names with cannabis and trial terms found nothing. General pages such as THC do not validate this cultivar.
Safety
Cannabis can cause altered time perception and impaired thinking, memory and movement. Anxiety, panic or hallucinations are more likely with large amounts, strong products or little experience.[7] See impairment and driving and anxiety, panic and paranoia. In the US, call 911 in an emergency or Poison Help at 1-800-222-1222. Laws differ and change; see cannabis laws by country. This is not legal or medical advice.
Frequently asked questions
Is it Chemdawg or Chemdog?
Both appear. One source calls Chemdog the official name and Chemdawg the common spelling.[1]
Where did Chemdawg come from?
Media accounts trace it to seeds found in flower bought at a 1991 Grateful Dead concert in Indiana, but the venue and details differ between accounts.[2][3]
What terpenes does Chemdog have?
In one 2015 to 2016 California dataset, Chemdog-labeled samples were led by beta-caryophyllene with wide variation in myrcene.[6]
What is Chemdawg's THC percentage?
Verified batch data was not available. Check each batch's own lab report.
References
- Leafly. Chemdawg aka Chemdog Weed Strain Information (strain encyclopedia; secondary source). Read 2026-10-22.
- Leafly News. The story of DogDaze, the Chemdog strain that never was (cannabis media; secondary source). Read 2026-10-22.
- Lopez A. Bud Backstories: The Origin of Chemdawg. Fat Nugs Magazine (cannabis media; anecdotal secondary source). Read 2026-10-22.
- Schwabe AL, McGlaughlin ME. Genetic tools weed out misconceptions of strain reliability in Cannabis sativa: implications for a budding industry. Journal of Cannabis Research, 2019. Read 2026-10-22.
- Smith CJ, Vergara D, Keegan B, Jikomes N. The phytochemical diversity of commercial Cannabis in the United States. PLoS ONE, 2022. Read 2026-10-22.
- Fischedick JT. Identification of Terpenoid Chemotypes Among High (-)-trans-Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol-Producing Cannabis sativa L. Cultivars. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 2017. Read 2026-10-22.
- National Institute on Drug Abuse. Cannabis (Marijuana). Read 2026-10-22.