Sour Diesel: Cultivar Profile With Sources, Lineage Claims and Lab Data Limits
Sour Diesel profile: reported Chemdawg and Super Skunk lineage, conflicting genealogy entries, genetic-testing limits, and why no verified potency or terpene figures are 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
- Sour Diesel
- Aliases
- Sour D, Sour Deez
- Name conflicts
- Genealogy database entries list conflicting trees (Chemdog x Super Skunk vs Original Diesel x DNL); one entry also lists Chemdog as a cross involving Sour Diesel. Related names such as Lemon Sour Diesel exist and are not treated as the same cultivar.
- Breeder attribution
- Not verified
- Retail label
- Hybrid (retail label) (a marketing category, not a measurement)
- Cannabinoid dominance
- THC-dominant
Reported lineage
- Cross of Chemdawg and Super Skunk (Leafly; Wikipedia, which cites a seed-company page) (Reported; source: Leafly, Sour Diesel strain page (commercial encyclopedia; attributed description, not evidence of composition). Read 2026-10-22.)
- Chemdog x Super Skunk (genealogy database entry 1) (Reported; source: SeedFinder.eu strain database, Sour Diesel genealogy entry 1 (contributor-entered lineage tree; not genetic proof). Read 2026-10-22.)
- Original Diesel x DNL, with Chemdawg further back (genealogy database entry 2) (Disputed; source: SeedFinder.eu strain database, Sour Diesel genealogy entry 2 (contributor-entered lineage tree; not genetic proof). Read 2026-10-22.)
Laboratory measurements: cannabinoids
Maryland (6 analytes)
dataset (Maryland flower, N=579 samples; test dates 2018-01-13 to 2023-12-04; median of 561 samples with a value). Laboratory: lab ID 2501 (275); lab ID 6401 (114); lab ID 1101 (112); lab ID 1201 (78). Dates: 2018-01-13 to 2023-12-04. 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 | 0.52 |
| CBDA | 0.03 | 0 | 20.47 |
| CBG | 0.11 | 0 | 1.12 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0.392 |
| Delta-9 THC | 0.35 | 0 | 28.33 |
| THCA | 24.25 | 0 | 87.7 |
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=42 samples; test dates 2018-10-04 to 2023-10-20; median of 42 samples with a value). Laboratory: not reported in dataset (42). Dates: 2018-10-04 to 2023-10-20. 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 | 0.2 |
| CBDA | 0.04 | 0 | 0.07 |
| CBG | 0.06 | 0 | 0.2 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0.32 |
| Total cannabinoids | 19.275 | 8.36 | 28 |
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=61 samples; test dates 2020-01-17 to 2023-04-03; median of 59 samples with a value). Laboratory: G3 LABS LLC (31); NV CANN LABS LLC (19); CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC (8); 374 LABS LLC (2) .... Dates: 2020-01-17 to 2023-04-03. 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 |
| CBDA | 0 | 0 | 0.13 |
| CBN | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Delta-9 THC | 0.52 | 0 | 5.67 |
| THCA | 25.987 | 15.47 | 34.211 |
| Total cannabinoids | 26.44 | 0 | 34.25 |
| Total THC | 23.3 | 15.2 | 30.05 |
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.
| Analyte | Value | Scope | Sample / batch | Laboratory | Test date | Method | Reported or calculated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| other | 0.09 % w/w | single batch | Sour Diesel, single research plant (CBC only), Kasetsart University collection, Thailand | Kasetsart University research laboratory, Thailand | not reported (paper published 2026) | HPLC, extracted in triplicate | 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 (11 terpenes)
dataset (Nevada flower, N=61 samples; test dates 2020-01-17 to 2023-04-03; median of 52 samples with a value). Laboratory: G3 LABS LLC (31); NV CANN LABS LLC (19); CERTIFIED AG LAB LLC (8); 374 LABS LLC (2) .... Dates: 2020-01-17 to 2023-04-03. 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 | 0.057 | 0.001 | 0.17 |
| alpha-Humulene | 0.078 | 0.003 | 1.12 |
| alpha-Pinene | 0.061 | 0.004 | 0.204 |
| beta-Caryophyllene | 0.231 | 0.06 | 1.26 |
| beta-Myrcene | 0.243 | 0.04 | 0.888 |
| beta-Pinene | 0.095 | 0.007 | 0.155 |
| Caryophyllene oxide | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.069 |
| D-Limonene | 0.352 | 0.06 | 0.907 |
| Linalool | 0.128 | 0.039 | 0.386 |
| Terpinolene | 0.027 | 0.004 | 1.275 |
| Total terpenes | 1.44 | 0.6 | 3.47 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humulene | 1.6 mg/g | dataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 0.5 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) | 4.4 mg/g | dataset (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 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 | 1.1 mg/g | dataset (N=10 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 |
| Myrcene | 2.8 mg/g | dataset (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 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 | 0.9 mg/g | dataset (N=10 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 | 4 mg/g | dataset (N=10 samples from one California dispensary, Feb 2015-Feb 2016; mean, SD 1.3 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-Pinene | 0.6 mg/g | dataset (N=10 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 | 1.6 mg/g | dataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.5) | 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 | 4.4 mg/g | dataset (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; limonene peak overlaps beta-phellandrene in cultivars containing alpha-phellandrene |
| Linalool | 1.1 mg/g | dataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.3) | 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 |
| Myrcene | 2.8 mg/g | dataset (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 |
| α-Bisabolol | 0.9 mg/g | dataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.3) | 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-Caryophyllene | 4 mg/g | dataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 1.3) | 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-Pinene | 0.6 mg/g | dataset (N=10 dried flower samples; mean, SD 0.3) | 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 |
Identity
Sour Diesel is a retail cultivar name (often called a strain). Leafly, a commercial cannabis information site, lists the aliases "Sour D" and "Sour Deez" and says the name became popular in the early 1990s. [1] No individual breeder could be verified from the sources read, so breeder attribution is unknown.Reported lineage is a cross of Chemdawg and Super Skunk. Leafly says so, and Wikipedia repeats it, but the Wikipedia sentence rests on a seed company's web page, so the two are not independent. [1][2] A public genealogy database shows how shaky this is. One contributor's entry lists Sour Diesel as Chemdog crossed with Super Skunk, while the same page lists Chemdog as a cross involving Sour Diesel. [3] Other entries in the same database trace Sour Diesel to "Original Diesel" crossed with another line, with Chemdawg further back. [4] These are contributor-entered trees, not genetic proof. See lineage claims and breeder attribution for how to weigh them.
Classification
The common retail label is hybrid, with Wikipedia describing mainly sativa parentage. [1][2] A 2019 genetic study bought retail flower under 30 strain names and used an online database's sativa percentages (Sour Diesel was listed as 90% sativa). Its tests found no clear genetic support for the sativa, indica and hybrid types in online databases. [5] That percentage describes a database entry, not a measurement.Cannabinoid dominance: in a Thai university collection of 36 varieties, Sour Diesel was classed as THC-dominant. [6] A name or category does not guarantee composition or effects. See why labels do not predict effects.
Is the name consistent?
In the 2019 study, samples sold as Sour Diesel did not form one tight genetic group: the strain was one of nine that had more than one divergent sample or no consistent genetic pattern. [5] Seven samples carried the name in that dataset. [5] So two jars with this name may differ genetically. The study did not measure effects.Appearance
None of the readable sources gave a usable, attributed description of the plant or flower for this cultivar, so none is given here.Aroma and constituents
Leafly describes a pungent flavor profile that smells like diesel. [1] This is a reported description, not a measurement. No readable, batch-level terpene dataset for Sour Diesel was found, so no terpene percentages are given and none should be inferred from the name. See terpenes in cannabis.Potency
Composition varies, and verified batch data (batch, laboratory, date, method) for Sour Diesel was not available. I checked a 2023 Colorado retail-flower study (it listed no sample named Sour Diesel), a Nevada chemical dataset, and the Thai collection above. [7]The only cannabinoid measurement found is from one research plant, not a retail batch. In the Thai collection, one plant per variety was grown indoors, extracted in triplicate and measured by HPLC. Sour Diesel contained 0.09% CBC, roughly twice the average of other THC-dominant varieties in that set. [6] This is one plant and one minor cannabinoid. The study's THC values sit in a supplementary table I could not read. For how labels work, see how to read a cannabis COA.
Reported experiences
These are anecdotes, not research. Leafly describes the effects as "dreamy, cerebral, fast-acting and energizing" and an automated summary of its user reviews notes that some reviewers report paranoia or anxiety. [1] Effects vary by person, product and amount.Research
Evidence label: insufficient evidence for the cultivar itself. I found no controlled human trial that tested Sour Diesel; searching Europe PMC for the name returned genetics, chemistry and online-survey papers. Absence from my search does not prove none exists. Findings for THC or other cannabinoids cannot be assumed to apply to this cultivar. Evidence labels on this page: insufficient evidence means studies exist but are too few or too weak to judge; preclinical means cells or animals only; "Proper evidence not found" means I looked and found nothing usable.Safety
Products sold under one name can differ, so a familiar name is not a guide to strength. [5] The risks of THC-containing cannabis are covered on impairment and driving, anxiety, panic and paranoia and adverse effects and use disorder. In the US, Poison Help is 1-800-222-1222 and emergencies are 911. Laws differ by place; see cannabis laws by country. This is education, not legal or medical advice.Frequently asked questions
Who created Sour Diesel and from what?
No breeder could be verified from the sources read. The commonly reported cross is Chemdawg and Super Skunk, but genealogy entries disagree. [1][3][4]
Is Sour Diesel a sativa?
It is usually sold as a hybrid and described as mainly sativa. Genetic testing of retail samples did not support the sativa, indica and hybrid types as distinct groups. [1][2][5]
What is the THC percentage of Sour Diesel?
It varies, and no verified batch value was found for this page. A percentage on a label or listing is a reported number from one product, not a fixed property of the name. In one Colorado study of other strains, about 70% of retail samples measured more than 15% below the label. [7]
Does Sour Diesel treat any condition?
Proper evidence not found. No controlled trial of this cultivar was identified. Talk with a clinician before using cannabis for any health problem.
References
- Leafly, Sour Diesel strain page (commercial encyclopedia; attributed description, not evidence of composition). Read 2026-10-22.
- Wikipedia, Sour Diesel (encyclopedia entry; its lineage statement cites a seed company web page). Read 2026-10-22.
- SeedFinder.eu strain database, Sour Diesel genealogy entry 1 (contributor-entered lineage tree; not genetic proof). Read 2026-10-22.
- SeedFinder.eu strain database, Sour Diesel genealogy entry 2 (contributor-entered lineage tree; not genetic proof). Read 2026-10-22.
- Schwabe AL, McGlaughlin ME. Genetic tools weed out misconceptions of strain reliability in Cannabis sativa: implications for a budding industry. J Cannabis Res 2019. Read 2026-10-22.
- Mayong A, Sreewongchai T, Limsuwan S, Tansakul N. Hierarchical Chemotaxonomic Differentiation in Cannabis Chemovars Using Quantitative HPLC Cannabinoid Profiling and Multivariate Chemometrics. Plants (Basel) 2026. Read 2026-10-22.
- Schwabe AL, Johnson V, Harrelson J, McGlaughlin ME. Uncomfortably high: Testing reveals inflated THC potency on retail Cannabis labels. PLoS One 2023. Read 2026-10-22.