Cultivation Archives - Green Market Report

Debra BorchardtDebra BorchardtMarch 19, 2018


Applied DNA Sciences (APDN) wants to use DNA tagging to track and verify cannabis strains. It wants to do for the cannabis industry what it did for the cotton industry – assure consumers that they are getting what they pay for. This Stony Brook, NY company has the ability to use DNA tagging to keep supply chains from being corrupted and make sure products are honest.

The Pima cotton story is the best way to explain this technology and why the company wants to apply the same process to the cannabis industry. Applied DNA Sciences began testing cotton products and realized consumers were spending extra money to purchase what they thought were premium cotton products called Pima. The makers of these Pima cotton sheets, towels and apparel believed that they were selling Pima products until it was proven that they weren’t. But whether it was the farmer or the factories in China that began blending non-Pima fibers into the finished product, the end result was that customers weren’t getting the Pima cotton they were paying for.

Applied DNA Sciences now tags most cotton following the harvest and then tests fibers, yarns, fabrics and even the finished product. Manufactures and consumers can now trust that whatever Pima cotton product they are buying, it is, in fact, a Pima cotton product.

That strain pride exists in the cannabis industry as well. Cannabis cultivators create and develop specific branded strains. Likewise, customers are very fond of popular strains like Blue Dream, Girl Scott Cookies or GG#4. The question is whether the cultivators are actually growing what they think they are growing and are the customers really getting the strain they think they are buying?

Canadian researchers from the University of British Columbia along with Sean Myles, a population geneticist at Dalhousie University conducted a strain study. They found only a moderate correlation between the marijuana reported by cultivators and the ancestry claimed. For example, a sample of Jamaican Lambs Bread, which is classified as cannabis sativa, was almost identical at a genetic level to a cannabis indica strain from Afghanistan. “Cannabis breeders and growers often indicate the percentage of Sativa or Indica in a cannabis strain, but they are not very accurate,” Page explained.

This could be avoided says Applied DNA Sciences. The company can apply a molecular tag to the plant which is unique to each cultivator. This is becoming increasingly important as farms invest thousands into their brands and they want to try to protect their strains as master growers move amongst different companies. This tag can be detected in plant material before and after drying. Their product is called CertainT.

“We knew we could spray the plant. We had done it with cotton, but we didn’t know what would happen after the processing of the plant,” said Gordon Hope, Director of Security Solutions. The company is now testing edible products to make sure the DNA tag can withstand the heating process during cooking.

A DNA tagging process could do that.With the CertainT tag, a manufacturer can be assured that the plant it buys from a cultivator is in fact what they believe they are buying. A customer can be certain that the strain they are purchasing is, in fact, that strain. The process can also be used to assist in regulatory compliance so that authorities can determine the origin of the product. Right now, the product on a shelf in a New York dispensary can be tracked by a seed-to-sale program but there is no way for the state to verify that the product was in fact grown in New York. A DNA tagging process could do that.

The tag can’t be compromised or copied. Even the U.S. Department of Defense relies on these tags to ensure the integrity of critical components such as lubricating oil or specific engine parts.

“They’ve got millions invested. They’re trying to protect their intellectual property, their trade secrets, their knowledge and their know-how,” said Hope. “Remember, most people can’t see the grow operations.” Hope also said that the medical marijuana companies he spoke to told him that their biggest problem is consistency. “Medical marijuana producers are very much concerned with consistency for their patients,” he said. “Large pharmaceutical companies don’t have this issue, but its critical for patients taking medical marijuana to know they are getting the exact same medicine for every dose.”

The company said it is sensitive to not adding a burden to the system. John Shearman Director of Marketing said, “We can be a nice overlay to provide that comfortable feeling and brand recognition.” They want to make it easy to run a test to verify a product’s origin. “A processor could be mixing in products that a brand isn’t able to verify and check,” he said.

In addition to helping processors and manufacturers, DNA Tagging can also help with regulatory authorities. The state should be able to check the product to make sure it is what it says it is. “If you want transparency in your system, you have no real way to assure that,” said Hope. “Everywhere along the supply chain, there is a chance for diversion. It could take 20 minutes to do the test. Even a dispensary could do the test on the product.”

Applied DNA Sciences currently has over 60 employees with 53 issued patents and 75 patent applications pending. The company has been testing its CertainT on cannabis in the state of Michigan where medical marijuana has been legal since 2008.

“The good news is you need very little DNA,” said Hope. “It’s a critical element missing from seed to sale chain.”

Peggi CloughPeggi CloughFebruary 28, 2018


The U.S. Cannabis Spot Index averaged $1,562 per pound in 2017, a 13 percent decrease from $1,789 per pound in 2016, according to Cannabis Benchmarks Annual Review & Outlook: 2017-2018 Edition.

The Index declined only 6 percent throughout 2017, opening at $1,532 and closing at $1,436, in contrast to the 20% decline seen in 2016.

Wholesale market for the cannabis flower was $5.7 billion in 2017. For reference, the wholesale wheat market was $7.8 billion. Volume grew by 22%, from 3 million pounds in 2016 to 3.7 million pounds in 2017.

Lowest prices for the year were again seen in November, with the national composite price down 11.6% in Q4 from Q3. Favorable weather conditions led to fall bumper crops, and the combination of outdoor and greenhouse flower hitting the market at the same time helped fuel this in 2017.

The lower level of spot price uncertainty led Cannabis Benchmarks to investigate the volatility of other agricultural commodities. They found that cannabis was in line with the others and that only one, wheat, increased. They believe cannabis volatility decreased in part because of fewer “regulatory and economic surprises.” This may also hold true for Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, although foreseen regulatory actions can greatly affect regional prices.

While it doesn’t have a huge impact on the market, greenhouse flower accounted for just under one-third of all volume traded in 2017, staying at the same volume as the second half of 2016. This is significant because it accounted for less than one-fourth of all volume in the first two quarters of 2016.

Warehouse flower contract prices appear to be trending downward. In 2017, 40% of individual transactions involving warehouse flower were greater than $2,000 per pound, down from 45% in 2016. When looking at flower selling for greater than $1,500 per pound, the numbers were even lower, 69% in 2017 as opposed to 80 percent in 2016.

The market also saw more agreements that were not involving product exchange, only financial exchange, such as futures, swaps, and options.

In the first half of the year, wholesale prices increased in California, but the bounteous fall crop proved to be too overwhelming to maintain the increase, and wholesale prices fell. Wildfires in the fall ravaged dozens of grow sites; however, they didn’t have an effect on supply statewide.

Colorado’s average Spot Index for 2017 was almost 30% below 2016’s Spot Index, continuing the downward trend that started in early 2016. The state has such an oversupply of cannabis that quality and other differentiating criteria have ceased to have much significance.

Wholesale prices in Oregon fell dramatically in 2017, less than 18 months after the state legalized sales to adults. A good growing season, lack of production limits and an increase in commercial growing knowledge were all factors in the decrease.

In the last weeks of 2017 and early into 2018, Washington’s wholesale prices were the lowest seen in any state, historically. This trend is being closely watched in 2018.

Cannabis Benchmarks is a division of New Leaf Data Services and provides wholesale price assessments in weekly, mid-year and annual reports. Their Annual Review & Outlook: 2017-2018 Edition offers wholesale market data, overview and analysis, and is available for purchase.

Debra BorchardtDebra BorchardtFebruary 27, 2018


NewBridge Global Ventures, Inc. (NBGV) announced that it has acquired cannabis education company Elevated Portfolio Holdings, LLC in an all-stock transaction.

Elevated Education, Inc. will acquire the assets of Elevated in exchange for 2,000,000 shares of company common stock. Elevated Portfolio is a company that offers medically focused education modules for physicians and clinicians as well as significant training regarding the body’s endocannabinoid systems and the use of cannabis for health and wellness.

Once closed, Elevated Education will be managed by the current NewBridge management team as well as key members from Elevated. This acquisition will be the first of what the company plans to be a series of acquisitions as part of its strategy to acquire industry leading companies in the regulated cannabis education, cultivation, manufacturing and distribution verticals.

“Our acquisition of Elevated initiates our strategy of investing in and acquiring industry technologies and companies in our targeted verticals. We’re excited to help expand the Elevated brand and offerings,” commented Mark Mersman, Chief Executive Officer of NewBridge Global Ventures. “We believe there is a significant need for medical professionals to become more informed on the endocannabinoid system and that bridging that gap between patient demand and healthcare provider knowledge is key to the growth of the emerging medical cannabis industry.”

SinglePoint Aquires Stake

SinglePoint Inc. (SING)  announced that it has signed a Letter Of Intent to acquire a stake in California cannabis cultivation MTH Development Group.  MTH currently operates 4.7 acres of land zoned for cannabis cultivation. SinglePoint has invested in the company in return for an equity stake. Currently the company leases its properties to licensed cultivators and operates one of the largest cultivations in Adelanto, California. This deal will further establish SinglePoint’s California footprint.

“We are excited for this opportunity. Having been to the operation and seeing their proprietary cultivation procedures we feel this is a great investment for SinglePoint. Part of this investment is to also test our new technologies with their tenants to improve as well as validate our systems. Their feedback will help us build the right solution and navigate the California market regulations”, states Wil Ralston President SinglePoint.



Robert LakinRobert LakinFebruary 27, 2018


The future of Israel’s $1 billion-plus medical cannabis export industry has been tossed back to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a decision after consideration by the parliamentary committee overseeing marijuana policy.

Cannabis is classified as a drug according to Israeli law and any export plan requires the prime minister’s approval.

Earlier this month, in what was seen as deference to the Trump administration’s opposition to legalized marijuana, Netanyahu sent the plan back to advisers for reassessment, bringing export planning to a halt. The prime minister is currently embroiled in multiple investigations, including an influence-peddling scandal that threatens to bring down his ruling coalition that has been otherwise supportive of medical cannabis reform.

The Agriculture, Finance, and Justice ministries are strong supporters of reform legislation as marijuana is considered to be one of the country’s “crops of the future,” according to the Agriculture minister. He denied media reports that the Trump administration was influencing Israeli marijuana export policy. A decision by Netanyahu is expected within a month.

“There are tens of millions of people in the world for whom this is the last resort,” said Israel’s Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Uri Ariel during the Knesset (parliament) committee meeting on Monday. “We’re not talking about any kind of narcotic, but about medicine. Israel shouldn’t export any raw material, rather medicine created following studies, like any other kind of pharmaceutical,” he said, according to Israeli business daily Calcalist.

Europe Seeks Israel Exports

Several countries have expressed interest in purchasing medical cannabis from Israel, including European countries where medical cannabis usage is growing, according to Israeli marijuana industry accelerator iCann. “Some nations, like Germany, currently rely solely on foreign producers,” vice president Sari Klaff wrote on the company’s blog earlier this month. After Netanyahu initially sent the policy back for review, iCann said the delay in a decision on Israel’s export of medical cannabis set the stage for a “staggering” potential financial loss.

However, if your horizon is “long-term growth and sustainability, then it doesn’t matter if the export is approved today, in a month, or in three months time,” Saul Kaye, the company’s CEO, said. “Export will happen from Israel.” The firm’s annual CannaTech event, spotlighting Israeli and global cannabis innovation, is scheduled over a three-day period mid-March in Tel Aviv.

Challenges to Nascent Industry

The policy would go a long way to addressing concerns about the quality of crops grown for export. In December, the director of the Health Ministry’s medical cannabis unit told the parliamentary committee that “most of what’s currently grown in Israel either does not meet the standards or is based on strains that have been smuggled into the country illegally.” Until that is remedied, according to director Yuval Landschaft, “we cannot establish an export industry based on strains that were smuggled in because we cannot export stolen goods.”

The Israeli government sees a significant economic opportunity in medical cannabis. Various published forecasts peg the sector to be worth from $260 million to as much as $1.1 billion by 2022. Earlier this year the government allocated the equivalent of $2.8 million for more than a dozen studies on boosting medical cannabis growing.

Eight growers have previously been licensed by the government to grow crops for export; Almost 400 Israeli farmers have applied for cannabis growing permits. The eight approved producers combined are permitted to grow as much as 25 tons of marijuana a year. Current demand is estimated at 10 tons, implying that an additional 15 tons could be grown without additional permits.



William SumnerWilliam SumnerFebruary 27, 2018


Part Four of a Four-part Series

The California Growers Association (CGA) believes that the California cannabis market is on the verge of a crisis. In a recently released report, the organization, which represents more than 1,100 small and independent cannabis businesses, details a litany of issues facing the California market; including the sobering statistic that less than 1% of the state’s cannabis cultivators are licensed.

So where do we go from here? How does California help stem the tide of this emerging crisis? In the fourth and final part of our four-part series, Green Marker Report will take you through the 36-page CGA report and break down some of the solutions it puts forward to fix California’s cannabis market.

If you missed the previous part, you can click here to view Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.

Of the many suggestions put forward in the report, the first and foremost is to eliminate emergency regulations passed by the state Department of Food and Agriculture which allows the unlimited stacking of 1-acre cannabis cultivation licenses. Opponents of the emergency regulation say that the rule violates the spirit and the letter of Proposition 64, which places a five year moratorium on large-scale cultivation, by allowing well-funded cannabis operations to essentially create mega-grows using a combination of small-scale cultivation licenses.

In addition to eliminating loopholes that favor large cannabis businesses, the CGA also suggests a total of 51 policy changes on the state and local; including the following

  • Allow smaller cannabis businesses to adjust to new regulation by creating tiered timelines for compliance.
  • Establish a temporary sales license enabling cannabis cultivators to sell directly to consumer through special event like Farmers’ Markets.
  • Remove premise requirements for cannabis transportation businesses.
  • Allow transportation businesses to reside at the same premises of another cannabis business
  • Reduce testing costs by allowing the compositing of multiple cannabis strains into a single testing batch and by reducing the number of batches required for testing.
  • Allow microbusiness license holders to operate at multiple premises for various purposes
  • Create a revolving loan fund for small cannabis businesses
  • Lower the excise tax rate
  • Streamline the cannabis tax collection process
  • Make compassionate use donations tax exempt.
  • Replace the cottage outdoor cultivation grow limit of 25 plants with a cultivation space limitation of 2,500 square feet.

Overall, the policy suggestions are aimed at reducing barriers for small, cottage, and specialty cannabis businesses; which the CGA characterizes as a “practical, economic, and moral imperative.” Noting that list of suggested policy changes was nowhere near comprehensive, the CGA hopes that it will serve as starting point for a wider discussion of cannabis regulation and encourages all concerned parties wishing to provide feedback to contact

William SumnerWilliam SumnerFebruary 26, 2018


Part Three of a Four-part series.

California’s cannabis market is on the verge of a crisis, according to a new report released by the California Growers Association (CGA), which represents more than 1,100 small and independent cannabis businesses.

According to the report, less than one percent of California’s cannabis cultivators are licensed by the state; leading many to ask: Why? What is it that is keeping cannabis cultivators out of California’s legal cannabis market? In part three of this four-part series, Green Market Report will examine the cultural and financial barriers that are keeping cultivators out of the market, as outlined by the recent CGA report.

If you’ve missed the previous parts, you can click here to view Part One and Part Two and get caught up.


The cannabis industry’s lack of adequate banking services has been well reported on. But what has slipped through the cracks are the other financial barriers that keep small to midsize cannabis cultivators out of the legal market; such as the lack of small business loans.

The single greatest barrier keeping cultivators out of the legal market, according to a survey of CGA members, is taxation. Due to the federal status of cannabis, most cannabis businesses cannot take standard deductions for business expenses like other industries have.

In many cases, this has the effect of creating an unreasonable tax burden on small to midsize cultivators; with some paying an effective federal tax rate as high as 60%. Additionally, state and local taxes have also proved to be burdensome for small-scale operators.

Many local governments have passed “gross receipt taxes” which are assessed at each step in the supply chain. More often than naught, theses taxes compound each other; turning a modest 5% into a cumulative 25% by the time it reaches the supply chain.

The CGA estimates that the effective tax rate for cannabis cultivators in California can range between 40%-60%, compared to states like Oregon where the effective tax rate is 18%. While larger operators can bear the brunt of this tax rate, many small businesses cannot.

Additionally, inefficiencies in tax collection can incur more unnecessary costs. Once a harvest leaves the cannabis producer, the cultivation tax is required to follow the harvest throughout the supply chain. In situations where a cultivator is directly supplying a retailer, this is not a problem.

However, this is often not the reality. Typically a harvest will pass through multiple points in the supply chain before reaching retailers. If the cannabis industry was not a cash-only business, this would not be a problem, but it’s not. Because of federal, cannabis businesses must physically move the cultivation tax through each point in the supply chain; creating a logistical and security nightmare.

Furthermore, cannabis cultivators must pay taxes on their harvest as soon as it moves through the supply chain; without any consideration of whether it will actually reach the market. The end result is cannabis cultivators having to pay their taxes before the even receive that money that’s actually being taxed.

Another financial burden is the lack of access to small business loans. While large-scale operations with deep-pocketed investors can get by without access to business, small-scale cultivators cannot.


Another barrier contributing to the small number of licensed cannabis cultivators is the culture in California. Approximately 20% of CGA members have been growing for more than two decades and well before medical cannabis was legal in California. These former outlaws have a deep seeded mistrust of the state and federal government and are reluctant to embrace state regulations. Conversely, many in state and local governments operate under incorrect assumptions and stereotypes about cannabis and consequently legislate accordingly.

The CGA also estimates that approximately 30% of the state’s cannabis cultivators operated “off the grid,” where electricity and broadband access is limited. The end result is that many cannabis cultivators that want to come into compliance simply can’t because they lack these basic resources.

While not necessarily an institutional barrier, some cannabis cultivators are simply not good at business. With a gossamer of state and local regulations, many small to midsize cannabis cultivators become overwhelmed by all of it and simply need more time to absorb the new rules.

The final and some would say most regrettable barrier to bringing cultivators into the market is that they simply don’t want to.

Some cultivators may be operating on public lands while others just have a general disrespect for the law. The side effect of this disregard for the law is that those that interested in becoming compliant are treated the same as those that don’t, and the CGA encourages the state to do all it can in provide a path to legality for cultivators acting in good faith.

Stay Tuned for Part 4

The greater question remains of how to address all of the other institutional, financial, and cultural barriers preventing cultivators from entering the market. Where do we go from here? What should be done? In the fourth and final part of our series, Green Market Report will examine the solutions put forward by the CGA to fix this emerging crisis.

William SumnerWilliam SumnerFebruary 23, 2018


Part Two of a Four-Part Series

Why are less than one percent of California cannabis cultivators actually licensed to grow cannabis? That is the question on everyone’s mind in the wake of a 36-page report released by the California Growers Association, which represents more than 1,100 small and independent cannabis businesses.

The report details many of the political, financial, and cultural barriers preventing small to midsize cannabis cultivators from entering the legal market. In part two of our four-part series, Green Market Report will take you through the report and lay out the state and local barriers standing in the way of cannabis cultivators.

Local Policy

Local cannabis regulations in California is, to say the least, a hodgepodge of conflicting rules passed by municipalities struggling to understand the legal cannabis market. As of February 2018, only 13 out of 58 California counties have passed laws allowing commercial cannabis activities

Six counties are likely to pass ordinances in the new future, while 14 more counties are currently studying the issue. Nearly half of California counties (25) have already passed bans on commercial cannabis activity.

Of those counties that have actually passed ordinances allowing cannabis activity, many have implemented caps on the number cannabis business permits available. For example, Trinity County only has 500 available cannabis business permits despite having more than 4,000 cultivators operating in the area.

Similarly, local zoning ordinances have made it increasingly difficult for cultivators. In Sonoma County, for example, a local ban on rural residential and agricultural residential areas have helped to exclude over 3000 cannabis cultivators from the market.

Likewise, in urban areas, many zoning ordinances have left cannabis businesses huddled in small business districts; which in turn have helped spike local real estate prices, thus further making it difficult for small-scale cannabis cultivators.

State Policy

Current state cannabis laws have also played a part in preventing small to midsize cannabis cultivators from entering the market. Under the 1976 Direct Marketing Act, California farmers are allowed to directly interact with consumers through Farmers’ Markets and Community Supported Agriculture.
However, current state law has not adapted to allow the privileges of cannabis cultivators. The state does offer cannabis event licenses, but these are strictly limited to retail cannabis businesses and exclude cannabis cultivators and manufacturers.

The CGA believes that this will have a negative effect on many small to midsize cultivators, many of whom were able to interact directly with patients under now-defunct state law.

Cannabis transportation has also proven to be a bottleneck for cultivators. Of the 192 licensed cannabis distributors, 133 (approximately 69%) hold at least one other license non-distribution licenses. Approximately 28% of distribution licenses are controlled by manufacturers, another 25% are owned by dispensaries, 9% belong to cannabis cultivators, 4% is controlled by businesses with multiple licenses in the supply chain, and 3% are controlled by delivery companies.

Only 31% (59) of the issued cannabis distribution licenses are actually owned by companies focused solely on distribution. What does this mean for cannabis cultivators? In essence, it means that not only are cannabis cultivators forced to rely on competitors for distribution but also that they have to rely on companies that simply not scaled to transport other licensees products.

Further complicating the distribution issue is cannabis testing. Not only are there too few licensed cannabis testing laboratories in the state (22 total), there are not enough distribution companies to meet the demand; which in turn drives up the price for both.

Also hurting cultivators is the soon-to-be distinction between medical and recreational cannabis on the production level. A six month grace period allowing medical and recreational licensees to transact with one another will soon expire, which will increase the start-up cost for prospective cannabis businesses.

For cultivators, this means having to get both a recreational and medicinal cultivation license in order to maintain market flexibility. Not only that, cultivators will have to decide which portion of their harvest will be dedicated to recreational and what portion will go towards the medicinal market.

The confluence of confusing state and local regulations has led to widespread confusion among the cannabis cultivators, which in and of itself is a barrier to licensing. In order to stay compliant with the law, licensees must be aware of regulations from the CDFA, BCC, MCSB, Water Board, CD FW, CDTFA, OSHA, as well as local building and fire code, and local regulatory and tax ordinances.

Stay Tuned for Part Three

According to a poll conducted by the CGA, 57% of its member cite regulatory confusion as a “significant” barrier to becoming licensed. But regulatory woes are not the only barriers towards becoming licensed cannabis cultivators. Indeed there is a litany of financial and even cultural considerations that keep many of the state’s cultivators from joining the legal market; and in part three of our four-part series, we will examine those issues. Stay tuned.

William SumnerWilliam SumnerFebruary 22, 2018


Part One of a Four-part series.  

Is California’s cannabis market on the verge of a crisis? If you ask the California Growers Association (CGA), the answer is yes. On Feb. 19, 2018, the group, which represents more than 1,100 small and independent cannabis businesses, released a 36-page report dubbed “An Emerging Crisis: Barriers to Entry in California Cannabis.”

The report details the structural, political, financial and cultural barriers that are preventing thousands of small to mid-size cannabis cultivators from participating in the state’s newly legal, and regulated, cannabis market.Of the state’s estimated 68,150 cannabis cultivators, only 534 are actually licensed to cultivate cannabis; which averages out to less that one percent (0.78%).

So why aren’t California’s cannabis cultivators entering the market?

In this four-part series, Green Market Report will take a look at the CGA’s report and walk you through the concerns it raises, the solutions it recommends, and why it matters to you. For Part One, we’ll take a look at why this report matters at all.

In order to understand why any of this matters, one first must look at the two laws which serve as the linchpin of California’s cannabis market: Proposition 64, which legalized recreational cannabis in the state, and the 2017 Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), which attempted to harmonize the medical and recreational market.

The CGA report claims that the role of small to midsize cannabis businesses was central to the conversation surrounding Proposition 64 and MAUCRSA; citing several passages in Proposition 64 aimed at “ensuring… the industry in California will be built around small and medium-sized businesses.,” and notes that MAUCRSA contains similar language.

After establishing the spirit of these two laws, the CGA report examines how the laws’ implementation fails to live up to the spirit; noting several issues which will be covered in more detailed in subsequent issues of this series.

The result of these barriers has had a deleterious effect on market participation from small to midsize cultivators, leading to market consolidation from larger operators. This consolidation leads to four primary issues which concern the CGA:

A small cannabis farm in California. (Shutterstock)

Biodiversity: Most large-scale businesses rely on standardization and reliability. A consolidated cannabis market would result in fewer strain choices for consumers and could limit the discovery of new strains

Overproduction: The CGA estimates that although the state produces 15 million pounds of cannabis a year, the state only consumes three million pounds. Given that the state already produces more than enough cannabis to meet demand, an increase of large-scale is not needed and could lead to overproduction, which is already an issue in states like Oregon.

Increased Use of Pesticides: A hallmark of industrial agriculture is the reliance on pesticides in cultivation, and this is true of large-scale cannabis grows. Small-scale grows, on the other hand, can be managed without the use of pesticides because of their size. More large-scale growers mean more pesticides.

Economic Collapse: The CGA estimates that there are approximately 68,000 small cannabis farms in California. With an average of 3.6 employees per farm, the number of people employed by those farms totals to 258,000. Thousands of people and the communities they live in have built their livelihoods around those farms and current regulations threaten to destabilize that status quo. If this issue is not addressed, the economic fallout could be dire.

Stay Tuned for Part Two

So what is standing in the way between small to midsize cannabis cultivators and becoming licensed by the state? In part two of our series, we’ll take a look at the state and local policies that prevent cannabis cultivators from entering the California market.

William SumnerWilliam SumnerFebruary 20, 2018


Canopy Growth Corporation (TWMJF) announced today that it has received a license for its cultivation facility in Aldergrove, British Columbia. Operating under the previously announced BC Tweed Joint Venture Inc. banner, the site is set to become one of the largest cannabis cultivation facilities in the world.

The initial license will cover approximately 400,000 square feet of growing space, but it is expected to expand into 1.3 million square feet over the comings month in time for the flowering and harvest stage of cultivation.

On. Feb. 16, 2018, upon learning that it had been issued a license and after consulting with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, the company decided to temporarily halt the trading of its common shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange as the license represented a substantial change in the company’s production capacity.

In a statement, Canopy President Mark Zekulin praised his company’s progress in the retail cannabis landscape.

“We are the only producer in Canada who can make this claim and we will continue to leverage our production platform in order to solidify a truly national presence for our cannabis brands,” Zekulin said. “A cultivation license for our first BC Tweed site positions us to continue this trend as Canada’s, and indeed the world’s largest, most reliable and most diversified producer and seller of high quality regulated cannabis.”

Over the weekend, the company shipped more than 100,000 cannabis clones, the largest shipment in company history, to the facility from its Tweed Smith Falls Campus to help kick-start the cultivation process.

With the Aldergrove facility now operational, the company plans to turn its focus to a second cultivation facility in British Columbia. With construction well underway, the facility is expected to have approximately 1.7 million square feet of growing space; bringing the company’s total available growing space to 5.6 million square feet.

“As proud native British Columbians and long-time horticulture producers we are excited to continue the proud tradition of BC bud on a national scale,” added BC Tweed’s Victor Krahn. “Working with Canopy Growth we’re going to take the Tweed brand to the next level on the West Coast and bring the best our province has to offer to the country and the world.”

William SumnerWilliam SumnerFebruary 16, 2018


Cannabis Wheaton Income Corp. (CBW) announced today that it had entered into a joint venture with Peter Quiring, one of the largest greenhouse builders and operators in Canada, to build a brand new cannabis greenhouse facility in Leamington, Ontario. The joint venture will operate through a newly formed subsidiary dubbed GreenhouseCo. Quiring will act as Chief Executive Officer of GreenhouseCo.

With over 25 years of experience building and operating greenhouses, Quiring has developed over 2,000 acres of greenhouses, operates approximately 175 acres of automated greenhouses, and operates one of the largest bell pepper and tomato greenhouses in North America.

“Today, I am pleased to announce my new exciting joint venture with Cannabis Wheaton and have full confidence in the management and teams that we have built together within my existing companies,” Quiring said in a statement. “I look forward to bringing my experience and values to this new partnership with Chuck, Hugo and their team at Cannabis Wheaton.”

“This is an exciting project both in terms of its scale and technological sophistication and we are honored to be partnering with the best in the business to ensure that this facility becomes one of the largest and best run greenhouse cultivation facilities in the country,” added Hugo Alves, President, and Director of Cannabis Wheaton.

For Phase 1 of the project, GreenhouseCo will initially develop 1.4 million square feet of a greenhouse on a 102-acre plot in Leamington, Ontario. The facility will be constructed by South Essex Fabricating on a site with access to approximately 27 megawatts of electricity and will be operated with a 100% closed-loop water recycling system.

Once Phase 1 is completed, the company estimates that the facility will produce approximately 120 million grams of cannabis per year. Combined with technological improvements adapted from Quiring’s existing greenhouses, the company believes that facility may be able to increase its output even more.

In addition to their current agreement, both Quiring and the company have agreed to jointly pursue international opportunities related to cannabis greenhouses, which includes greenhouse development and licensing GreenhouseCo’s intellectual property and operational expertise.

About Us

The Green Market Report focuses on the financial news of the rapidly growing cannabis industry. Our target approach filters out the daily noise and does a deep dive into the financial, business and economic side of the cannabis industry. Our team is cultivating the industry’s critical news into one source and providing open source insights and data analysis


Recent Tweets

@GreenMarketRpt – 7 hours

RT : This is a super important dynamic: As long as you can shop around for labs, there will be some that are more “friendly…

@GreenMarketRpt – 7 hours

RT : Review your team approach and from the week so far. How can you make adjustments to boost the p…

Back to Top