SIDE-BY-SIDE FIELD NOTES
Blackberry Kush
vs OG Kush
Leafly catalog summary values, not laboratory results for a specific sample. A displayed 0% is a rounded source value, not proof of absence. Unlisted cannabinoids remain unknown. Report totals are not per-effect sample sizes.
Blackberry Kush source ↗OG Kush source ↗
| Profile |  |  |
|---|---|---|
| Classification | indica | hybrid |
| Breeder | Not verified | Not verified |
| THC · catalog reference | 17% | 25% |
| CBD · catalog reference | 0% | 0% |
| CBG · catalog reference | Not reported | Not reported |
| Dominant terpene | Caryophyllene | Myrcene |
| Terpenes | Caryophyllene, Limonene, Myrcene | Myrcene, Limonene, Caryophyllene |
| Aroma | Pepper / spice, Citrus, Earthy / herbal | Earthy / herbal, Citrus, Pepper / spice |
| Flavor | ||
| Reported effects | ||
| Reported negative effects | ||
| Reported parents | Afghani (Reported parent), Blackberry (Reported parent) | Not verified |
| Lineage status | Reported parentage | Disputed parentage |
| Ancestry components | Not verified | Chemdawg (Ancestry component · disputed), Lemon Thai (Ancestry component · disputed), Hindu Kush (Ancestry component · disputed) |
| Selected from | Not verified | Not verified |
| Lineage notes | Blackberry Kush, also called BBK, is reported as an Afghani and Blackberry cross. The source associates its aroma with both berry and fuel-like descriptors. This is a source-reported identity, not a genetically authenticated pedigree. | Leafly recounts a proposed mix involving Chemdawg, Lemon Thai, Hindu Kush and an unnamed Northern California plant. The direct parent identities and crossing order are uncertain. |
| Source reports · whole profile | 2,066 | 5,695 |
Explore Blackberry Kush family ↗Explore OG Kush family ↗
Similarities
Shared documented terpenes: Caryophyllene, Limonene, Myrcene.
Main differences
The catalog lists THC at 17% for Blackberry Kush and 25% for OG Kush. These reference points do not establish a sample range or an individual product's potency.
Keep the context
Reported attributes are subjective. Classification and chemical similarity do not establish equivalent effects.