Skip to content
AlternativeMed

OG Kush: Cultivar Profile With Sources, Lineage Claims and Lab Data Limits

OG Kush is one of the best-known cannabis names, yet its origin story is disputed and published lab results under the name vary widely. Here is what sources show.

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
OG Kush
Aliases
O.G. Kush, Original Kush
Name conflicts
A seed-variety database lists 41 seed-company entries under the OG Kush name. The meaning of OG is disputed (Ocean Grown, Original Gangster).
Breeder attribution
A popular story names Florida's Matt 'Bubba' Berger; other accounts describe California origins and conflicting parents. (Disputed)
Retail label
Hybrid (retail label) (a marketing category, not a measurement)
Cannabinoid dominance
THC-dominant

Reported lineage

  • Often described as a mix of Chemdawg and a Hindu Kush landrace. (Reported; source: The Cannigma. OG Kush weed strain review and profile. Editorial profile (attributed source with limits). Read 2026-10-22.)
  • Triangle Kush and OG Kush seeds made in south Florida in 1991; the writers insist Chemdawg is not a parent. (Disputed; source: SeedFinder. OG Kush by Clone Only Strains. Seed-database entry quoting the company's own account (attributed source with limits). Read 2026-10-22.)
  • Story #1 on the same page: original cut came from an S1 in a bag of '91 Chemdawg in the Lake Tahoe area in 1996. (Disputed; source: SeedFinder. OG Kush by Clone Only Strains. Seed-database entry quoting the company's own account (attributed source with limits). Read 2026-10-22.)

Laboratory measurements: cannabinoids

Hawaii (5 analytes)

dataset (Hawaii flower, N=20 samples; test dates 2018-05-25 to 2024-06-17; median of 20 samples with a value). Laboratory: not reported in dataset (20). Dates: 2018-05-25 to 2024-06-17. 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.

Dataset summary
AnalyteMedianMinimumMaximum
CBD001
CBDA0.0501
CBG0.0950.030.1
CBN000
Total cannabinoids20.75427.05

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.

Maryland (6 analytes)

dataset (Maryland flower, N=46 samples; test dates 2018-10-22 to 2023-12-15; median of 42 samples with a value). Laboratory: lab ID 1101 (24); lab ID 6401 (9); lab ID 1201 (7); lab ID 2501 (6). Dates: 2018-10-22 to 2023-12-15. 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.

Dataset summary
AnalyteMedianMinimumMaximum
CBD000
CBDA000.13
CBG0.100.69
CBN000.04
Delta-9 THC0.2901.11
THCA24.755.0429.83

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=88 samples; test dates 2020-01-10 to 2023-11-21; median of 70 samples with a value). Laboratory: G3 LABS LLC (43); NV CANN LABS LLC (35); CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC (5); DB LABS LLC (5). Dates: 2020-01-10 to 2023-11-21. 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.

Dataset summary
AnalyteMedianMinimumMaximum
CBD000
CBDA000.164
CBN000
Delta-9 THC0.29301.714
THCA22.79115.90837.25
Total cannabinoids21.795038.26
Total THC20.2615.0733.67

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.

Cannabinoid measurements with batch context
AnalyteValueScopeSample / batchLaboratoryTest dateMethodReported or calculated
THC21.9 % (mass of component per mass of as-received sample)single batch (one dispensary sample)Table 3 | OG Kushin-house chromatography by study authors (laboratory not named in source)not reported in sourceGC-FID, relative response, methanol extractreported
THC (observed; paper defines total THC = THC + 0.877 x THCA)15.76 % dry weightsingle batch (retail package; mean of 3 HPLC replicates, SD 0.35)OG Kush 1 | Dispensary 8, 403R-00090Mile High Labs (Colorado)not reported in sourceHPLC-DAD, 240 nm, C18 reverse phase, Cerilliant standardsreported
THC (observed; paper defines total THC = THC + 0.877 x THCA)15.71 % dry weightsingle batch (retail package; mean of 2 HPLC replicates, SD 0.27)OG Kush 2 | Dispensary 2, 402R-00012Mile High Labs (Colorado)not reported in sourceHPLC-DAD, 240 nm, C18 reverse phase, Cerilliant standardsreported
THC (observed; paper defines total THC = THC + 0.877 x THCA)17.86 % dry weightsingle batch (retail package; mean of 3 HPLC replicates, SD 0.08)OG Kush 3 | Dispensary 6, 402R-00235Mile High Labs (Colorado)not reported in sourceHPLC-DAD, 240 nm, C18 reverse phase, Cerilliant standardsreported
THC (observed; paper defines total THC = THC + 0.877 x THCA)16.68 % dry weightsingle batch (retail package; mean of 3 HPLC replicates, SD 0.28)OG Kush 4 | Dispensary 9, 402R-00078Mile High Labs (Colorado)not reported in sourceHPLC-DAD, 240 nm, C18 reverse phase, Cerilliant standardsreported
total THC15.76 % w/wsingle batchOG Kush 1 (Dispensary 8, Denver); label said 15.20-26.14 % THC; replicate SD 0.35Mile High Labs, Loveland CO (third-party)not reported in sourceHPLC-DAD; total THC = THC + 0.877 x THCAcalculated
total THC15.71 % w/wsingle batchOG Kush 2 (Dispensary 2, Denver); label said 28.07-31.28 % THC; replicate SD 0.27Mile High Labs, Loveland CO (third-party)not reported in sourceHPLC-DAD; total THC = THC + 0.877 x THCAcalculated
total THC17.86 % w/wsingle batchOG Kush 3 (Dispensary 6, Fort Collins); label said 24.2 % THC; replicate SD 0.08Mile High Labs, Loveland CO (third-party)not reported in sourceHPLC-DAD; total THC = THC + 0.877 x THCAcalculated
total THC16.68 % w/wsingle batchOG Kush 4 (Dispensary 9, Denver); label said 15.00-25.01 % THC; replicate SD 0.28Mile High Labs, Loveland CO (third-party)not reported in sourceHPLC-DAD; total THC = THC + 0.877 x THCAcalculated
CBCA0.17 % w/wdataset (N=3 plants; mean of two replicas per plant)Table 3Institute of Forensic Medicine, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Switzerlandnot reported in source (plants harvested mid-October 2020)HPLC coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry, methanol extract of dried inflorescencereported
CBG0.04 % w/wdataset (N=3 plants; mean of two replicas per plant)Table 3Institute of Forensic Medicine, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Switzerlandnot reported in source (plants harvested mid-October 2020)HPLC coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry, methanol extract of dried inflorescencereported
CBNA0.08 % w/wdataset (N=3 plants; mean of two replicas per plant)Table 3Institute of Forensic Medicine, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Switzerlandnot reported in source (plants harvested mid-October 2020)HPLC coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry, methanol extract of dried inflorescencereported
THC0.65 % w/wdataset (N=3 plants; mean of two replicas per plant)Table 3Institute of Forensic Medicine, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Switzerlandnot reported in source (plants harvested mid-October 2020)HPLC coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry, methanol extract of dried inflorescencereported
THCA8.68 % w/wdataset (N=3 plants; mean of two replicas per plant)Table 3Institute of Forensic Medicine, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Switzerlandnot reported in source (plants harvested mid-October 2020)HPLC coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry, methanol extract of dried inflorescencereported

Each row describes the stated sample or dataset only. Composition varies between batches. Sources are listed in the page references.

Laboratory measurements: terpenes

Nevada (11 terpenes)

dataset (Nevada flower, N=88 samples; test dates 2020-01-10 to 2023-11-21; median of 36 samples with a value). Laboratory: G3 LABS LLC (43); NV CANN LABS LLC (35); CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC (5); DB LABS LLC (5). Dates: 2020-01-10 to 2023-11-21. 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 dataset summary
TerpeneMedianMinimumMaximum
alpha-Bisabolol0.0910.0370.132
alpha-Humulene0.170.0380.36
alpha-Pinene0.0590.0180.252
beta-Caryophyllene0.4160.1481.56
beta-Myrcene0.1290.0550.683
beta-Pinene0.0820.0190.232
Caryophyllene oxide0.0380.0080.1
D-Limonene0.330.0911.164
Linalool0.160.0330.35
Terpinolene0.0250.0230.206
Total terpenes1.460.392.74

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 measurements with batch context
TerpeneValueScopeSample / batchLaboratoryTest dateMethod
alpha-bisabolol0.5 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 0.2)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
alpha-pinene0.4 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 0.4)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
alpha-terpineol0.5 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 0.4)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
beta-caryophyllene4 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 1.1)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
beta-pinene0.9 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 0.4)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
endo-fenchyl alcohol0.5 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 0.4)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
humulene1.5 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 0.4)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
limonene5.4 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 2.5)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
linalool1.8 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 1.0)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
myrcene7.1 mg/gdatasetdataset: 10 samples sold as Og Kush from one California dispensary over about a year; reported as mean +/- SD (SD 2.5)Excelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc., Union City CAnot reported (samples submitted over about one year)GC-FID, peaks confirmed by GC-MS
Endo-fenchyl-alcohol0.5 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.4 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
Humulene1.5 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.4 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior 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)5.4 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 2.5 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
Linalool1.8 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 1.0 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
Myrcene7.1 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 2.5 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
α-Bisabolol0.5 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.2 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
α-Pinene0.4 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.4 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
α-Terpineol0.5 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.4 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
β-Caryophyllene4 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 1.1 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
β-Pinene0.9 mg/gdataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.4 as printed; dry-weight basis not stated)not reported in sourceExcelsior Analytical Laboratory, Inc.not reported in source (samples collected Feb 2015 to Feb 2016)GC-FID, peak identity confirmed by GC-MS
Endo-fenchyl-alcohol0.5 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.4)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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
Humulene1.5 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.4)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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
Limonene5.4 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 2.5)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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
Linalool1.8 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 1.0)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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
Myrcene7.1 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 2.5)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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-Bisabolol0.5 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.2)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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-Pinene0.4 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.4)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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-Terpineol0.5 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.4)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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-Caryophyllene4 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 1.1)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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-Pinene0.9 mg/gdataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.4)dispensary samples pooled by cultivar name (n=10)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

OG Kush is a widely sold cannabis cultivar (commonly called a strain). This page keeps four things apart: what the name is, what people say about its ancestry, what laboratories have actually measured, and what research exists. This page is information only, not advice to use, buy or grow anything. Where a finding is thin we say "Proper evidence not found," and we describe evidence as "insufficient evidence" when it comes from one small study or one case.

Identity and lineage claims

The name is spelled several ways (OG Kush, O.G. Kush, Original Kush). An editorial profile says the exact origin is "pretty hard to nail down," and that it is often described as a mix of Chemdawg and a Hindu Kush landrace.[1] A seed company page quotes a different account from named people in the Florida and California cannabis scene: Triangle Kush and OG Kush seeds made in south Florida in 1991, with the writers insisting Chemdawg is not a parent.[2] The same page also lists two earlier stories that do say Chemdawg was involved, including one in which the "OG" tag meant "Ocean Grown."[2] One popular story names a Florida man, Matt "Bubba" Berger, as a breeder behind the strain, while others read "OG" as "Original Gangster."[1]

None of these accounts is a peer-reviewed record, and they contradict each other. We list them as reported lineage with low confidence. See how lineage claims and breeder attribution work. A seed-variety database lists 41 different seed-company entries under the OG Kush name,[3] so a single "OG Kush" does not exist. For more on name overlap, see cultivar names, aliases and conflicts.

Classification

Retail labels differ by source. One editorial profile calls it hybrid-dominant,[1] a seed company lists its version simply as an indica,[2] and a genetics study used a 55 percent sativa figure taken from an online strain database.[4] Peer-reviewed genetic work found that the common sativa, indica and hybrid groupings did not match the genetic groups in its 122 samples.[4] In a terpene study of cultivars from one California dispensary, OG Kush samples were THC-producing and fell in a group of cultivars marked by myrcene and limonene.[5] Read why labels do not predict effects for more.

Appearance

An editorial profile describes dense, frosty flowers with an earthy, woody aroma.[1]

Aroma and constituents

In a study of 233 samples from one California dispensary over about a year, 10 samples sold as "Og Kush" were measured for terpenes by gas chromatography.[5] This is a dataset, not a batch. Values below are reported as a value plus or minus standard deviation, in mg per gram of plant material:

TerpeneReported value (mg/g)
Myrcene7.1 ± 2.5
Limonene5.4 ± 2.5
Beta-caryophyllene4.0 ± 1.1
Linalool1.8 ± 1.0
Humulene1.50 ± 0.4

The large standard deviations show samples under one name differed. The author also states that cultivar names are used with "obscure and inconsistent nomenclature."[5] Learn more about these compounds in terpenes in cannabis.

Genetic testing of four OG Kush samples bought in Colorado and California did not show one uniform genetic identity,[4] and a later study found some OG Kush samples were close genetic matches while others were only loosely related.[6] Across the four names that study tested, genetic outliers tended to smell different to panelists.[6]

Potency

Source-backed results come from a University of Northern Colorado study that bought four OG Kush flower samples at Colorado dispensaries and sent them to a third-party laboratory. The lab used liquid chromatography and calculated total THC as THC plus 0.877 times THCA.[7] These are four single samples, each tested in two to three replicates; the paper does not give test dates.

SampleLabel said (THC %)Measured total THC, % dry weight (SD)
OG Kush 115.20 to 26.1415.76 (0.35)
OG Kush 228.07 to 31.2815.71 (0.27)
OG Kush 324.217.86 (0.08)
OG Kush 415.00 to 25.0116.68 (0.28)

The same study found that across all 23 samples, measured THC averaged 14.98%, well below label values.[7] We do not offer a typical value for OG Kush: composition varies, and verified batch data for any particular product you may meet was not available to us. See how to read a cannabis COA and laboratory variability.

Reported experiences

An editorial profile describes a "cerebral and couchlock" mix of effects.[1] That is a consumer-style description, anecdote only, and it is not controlled research. It cannot predict what any person will feel.

Research

Proper evidence not found for OG Kush as a named product in human clinical trials. We searched Europe PMC for the name with clinical-trial terms and found chemistry, genetics and market studies only. General cannabinoid evidence is on THC and clinical research overview; those pages do not validate this cultivar.

Safety

THC can impair thinking, memory and body movement, and anxiety or panic are more common when a product is strong.[8] Because label numbers can differ from measured values,[7] a product's strength can be a surprise. Read impairment and driving, anxiety, panic and paranoia and when to seek urgent help.

Frequently asked questions

Where did OG Kush come from?

Nobody can say for certain. Accounts name Florida and southern California in the early 1990s and give conflicting parents.[1][2]

How much THC does OG Kush have?

Composition varies. Four Colorado flower samples sold under the name measured about 15.7 to 17.9% total THC, while their labels claimed different, often higher, values.[7] That is four samples, not a standard.

Does OG Kush always smell the same?

No. A terpene dataset of 10 samples showed wide spread,[5] and genetically different samples of the same name smelled different to panelists.[6]

Is there research proving what OG Kush does?

Proper evidence not found. Studies on the name cover chemistry and genetics, not health outcomes.[5]

References

  1. The Cannigma. OG Kush weed strain review and profile. Editorial profile (attributed source with limits). Read 2026-10-22.
  2. SeedFinder. OG Kush by Clone Only Strains. Seed-database entry quoting the company's own account (attributed source with limits). Read 2026-10-22.
  3. SeedFinder. All OG Kush strains. Seed-variety database listing (attributed source with limits). Read 2026-10-22.
  4. Schwabe et al. Genetic tools weed out misconceptions of strain reliability in Cannabis sativa: implications for a budding industry. Journal of Cannabis Research 2019;1:3. Read 2026-10-22.
  5. Fischedick JT. Identification of Terpenoid Chemotypes Among High (-)-trans-Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol-Producing Cannabis sativa L. Cultivars. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 2017;2(1):34-47. Read 2026-10-22.
  6. Schwabe et al. Human olfactory discrimination of genetic variation within Cannabis strains. Frontiers in Psychology 2022;13:942694. Read 2026-10-22.
  7. Schwabe, Johnson, Harrelson et al. Uncomfortably high: Testing reveals inflated THC potency on retail Cannabis labels. PLOS ONE 2023;18(4):e0282396. Read 2026-10-22.
  8. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Cannabis (Marijuana). Read 2026-10-22.
Education, not medical advice. This page is for general information. It does not diagnose or treat any condition and is not a substitute for care from a qualified health professional. Natural does not automatically mean safe. Ask a clinician or pharmacist before changing your care, especially if you take medication, are pregnant or breastfeeding, or have a health condition.