AN INDEPENDENT GUIDE TO CANNABIS KNOWLEDGE Information, with context.
CannabisAtlasFIELD NOTES / VOL. 01
Illustrative cannabis photo from Leafly; not a verified Ghost OG specimen
Illustrative photo: Leafly ↗
CULTIVAR FIELD NOTES

Ghost OG

hybrid

Ghost OG is described by Leafly as a cut of OG Kush. Its family connection is therefore represented as a phenotype selection. Keeping that distinction visible helps readers understand why an OG-family name can have its own page without requiring a separate two-parent pedigree.

Phenotype selection · Explore family ↓Compare this strain ↗
Classificationhybrid
THC · reference19%
CBD · reference0%
Dominant terpeneMyrcene
BreederNot verified
OriginNot verified
01 / REPORTED EXPERIENCES

Effects & flavor notes.

Explore the words people use to describe Ghost OG.

702reports on Leafly · whole profile
THE EXPERIENCE

Reported effects

Subjective feelings described by readers.

THE SENSORY NOTES

Flavors & aromas

Reader-reported flavor descriptors.

ALSO REPORTED

Unwanted effects

These are subjective reports, not guaranteed effects or medical conclusions. The report total covers the whole profile; individual tag frequencies are unavailable.

How to read these reports
02 / GENETIC CONNECTIONS

Parents, origins & family

Phenotype selection
The linked source explicitly describes an OG Kush cut. A selection link is used rather than a reported cross.

100%

Selected from

THIS STRAINGhost OGPhenotype selection

Children & later selections 2

How to read these relationships

Parent links describe a reported cross. Ancestry components may be several generations back. A phenotype selection comes from a named line rather than a new two-parent cross. Disputed links retain the uncertainty of their source.

Names in this catalog open a strain profile. Other names open the reference describing the relationship. The family view shows the links currently documented here, not every known descendant.

03 / PLANT CHEMISTRY

Cannabinoid profile

CATALOG REFERENCE

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.

Leafly source ↗ · Checked 2026-09-24

Concentrations vary by sample. A cultivar name alone does not establish potency.

Terpenes & aroma

Catalog-listed terpenes. Dominance is shown only where the source states it; percentages are unavailable unless separately recorded.

Similar strains

Similarity uses catalog reference chemistry, reported attributes and lineage. Missing data is excluded; this is not an effects prediction.

Illustrative cannabis photo from Leafly; not a verified Mendo Breath specimen
Illustrative photo: Leafly
indica03
Mendo Breath

Mendo Breath links OGKB and Mendo Montage in Leafly's account. Both names are retained as distinct profiles so readers can follow the Cookies and Mendocino connections separately. Its vanilla-related descriptors are catalog impressions; they do not identify or validate a specific batch.

Reported parentage ↗
THC 19%CBD Not reported
Catalog reference valuesCompare +

Compare with related strains

Choose another strain to compare →
04 / FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

References & provenance

Editorial review pending. This public profile includes draft descriptions and attributed catalog information; source checks are not independent verification of every claim.

  • Leafly — Ghost OG identity and lineage

    The linked source explicitly describes an OG Kush cut. A selection link is used rather than a reported cross.

    Accessed 2026-09-24
  • Leafly — ghost og catalog parameters

    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. Terpene names and documented order come from the catalog; concentrations are not supplied. Effects, flavors and negative effects are reader-reported tags. The report count covers the profile as a whole, not individual tags.

    Accessed 2026-09-24

Updated 2026-10-06 · Our editorial standards