Animal Rntz (Cannabis flos S-LAB): lineage from Animal Cookies and profile with caryophyllene
Animal Rntz is a hybrid from Animal Cookies and Runtz, supplied to Polish pharmacies by one producer. We describe its lineage, terpene profile composition from one source, and what has not been studied for this strain.
| Strain card | Animal Rntz |
|---|---|
| Producers | S-LAB (1 pharmacy position) |
| Medical brand | the same as the producer |
| Alternative names | none |
| Category according to sources | hybrid with indica dominance |
| Leading terpene | caryophyllene |
| Other terpenes | humulene limonene linalool pinene |
| Lineage | established Animal Cookies × Runtz |
| Source consistency | one source |
- Who supplies. Exclusively S-LAB, so there is nothing to compare versions with, and a supply break means the absence of this strain, not another version of it.
- Profile. Led by caryophyllene, alongside humulene, limonene, linalool, pinene. We do not provide percentage shares, as sources count them against different wholes.
- Origin. Established lineage, parents are Animal Cookies and Runtz.
- What is missing. The profile describes one source, so there is nothing to compare it with.
Where does Animal Rntz come from and what is known about its lineage?
Animal Rntz was created by crossing Animal Cookies with Runtz, and this lineage is consistently provided by three independent descriptions of this cultivar. The genetics are described as a hybrid with indica dominance, although this particular description comes from one source, so we treat it as a guideline, not a determination.
The established lineage is not an obvious thing in this comparison. Of the 85 described cultivars, the parents are known for 60, while for the remaining 25, no available source provides them, or the sources contradict each other. Animal Rntz belongs to the first group, so something can be said about it beyond what is visible from the name.
The name itself would not determine anything, either. The common component is often just a marketing gimmick: the word “kush” appears in the same combination in ten positions, five of which have no established parents. The abbreviation “Rntz” here coincides with the actual parent, but the coincidence of names would not be proof, and we did not treat it as such.
The declared THC content for this strain is given in the range of 16.2-19.8%. The range notation does not stem from editorial caution: the permissible deviation from the value declared by the producer can reach ten percent in either direction, and the batch hitting the shelf falls somewhere within this window. The number comes from one comparison, not from comparing several series.
Who brings Animal Rntz to the Polish pharmacy market?
One producer. Animal Rntz reaches Polish pharmacies exclusively in the version branded by S-LAB, and no other form of this strain appears in the collected inventory. The question about differences between pharmacy versions thus loses its subject here, as there is simply nothing to compare.
| Producer | Status in the collected inventory | How it differs from other versions |
|---|---|---|
| S-LAB | Only pharmacy version of this strain | There is nothing to compare, as no second version is supplied |
A single supplier changes what can be written about the strain at all. Where the same cultivar is led by several producers, differences are visible in the declared potency, in the profile description, and in the method of preparing the raw material. Here, such material does not exist, and every sentence about differences between versions would be fabrication.
S-LAB is responsible for 38 positions in this comparison, so Animal Rntz is not an exception or a separate product for them. The scale of the offer matters when reading descriptions: a producer leading dozens of cultivars usually describes them with one template, and the differences between them can be blurred in such material. A full list of this supplier’s strains is collected in a study dedicated to S-LAB.
Availability is, in fact, a temporary state. The raw material is imported in batches, and a supply break or withdrawal of a series can remove a position from the list for several months and restore it later without notice. The current state of the assortment is maintained in the list of available strains.
What aroma characterizes Animal Rntz?
- humulene humulene
- caryophyllene caryophyllene (leading in the pharmacy list)
- limonene limonene
- linalool linalool
- pinene pinene
The scent is described as sweet and spicy: a peppery and earthy note from caryophyllene, layered with the citrus sharpness of limonene and a floral, slightly lavender tone of linalool. This is a sensory description, not a measurement, and different evaluators can present the same samples quite differently.
The profile composition is provided without percentage shares, and this is a conscious decision. We summed the shares provided by Polish databases for the same positions, and it came out once 46 percent, once 73, once 83. The denominator remains different in each of these comparisons, and at the same time, nowhere disclosed. A number pulled from such a comparison suggests precision, which simply does not exist in it.
The profile of Animal Rntz describes five positions: humulene, caryophyllene, limonene, linalool and pinene. The description comes from one source, budcare.pl, so we do not have a second comparison that would confirm it or diverge from it. The leading position according to shares in this description is caryophyllene.
The aroma should not be read as a prediction of effects. The nose detects volatile components at concentrations that say nothing about how much substance reaches the bloodstream during vaporization. The scent can be a practical guide in assessing the freshness of the batch, as the dried material stored too long loses the most volatile notes first.
When does the effect appear and how long does one episode last?
The pace of onset is determined by the method of intake, not the name of the cultivar. Inhaled vapor gives a noticeable onset very quickly, and the whole experience fits into one afternoon; the ingested raw material responds with a significant delay and lasts for the rest of the day. No one has performed such a measurement for Animal Rntz.
The route of administration determines the course more than the strain itself, and the ranges below describe it, not this cultivar, as pharmacokinetic studies for a single cultivar have not been published.
| Vaporization | After ingestion | |
|---|---|---|
| First sensations | after a few minutes | from half an hour to two |
| Onset | another ten to thirty minutes | slow, over several hours |
| Total duration | within two to four hours | after six, sometimes eight hours |
| Typical error | none | taking a dose after thirty minutes, which gives both doses at once |
Neither the lineage nor the profile composition changes this. The influence of individual terpenes on absorption and the duration of the episode in humans has not been measured, and the producer does not publish data on the course of action for this position. The method of taking the raw material is determined by the attending physician.
What is really known about the effects of Animal Rntz?
Not much, if sticking to research. Not a single paper has been published dedicated to this cultivar, and the evidence we have concerns isolated caryophyllene administered to animals. The rest of what circulates in commercial descriptions is patient reports or producer material and should not be confused with scientific evidence.
Two papers concern caryophyllene itself.
| Study | Model and route of administration | What was shown |
|---|---|---|
| Gertsch J et al., 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) PMID:18574142 |
mouse (in vivo) and test tube (receptor binding, human cells) | (E)-caryophyllene selectively bound to the CB2 receptor (Ki = 155 nM) and inhibited carrageenan-induced paw swelling in wild-type mice, but not in CB2 receptor knockout mice (Cnr2-/-), indicating a CB2-dependent mechanism; the study did not include any anxiety tests. |
| Klauke AL et al., 2014 European Neuropsychopharmacology PMID:24210682 |
rodent (mouse) | Oral caryophyllene reduced late inflammatory pain phase in mice in the formalin test in a CB2 receptor-dependent manner, with no effect on the early phase; in a neuropathic pain model, it alleviated thermal hyperalgesia and mechanical allodynia without developing tolerance with chronic administration. |
In neither of the two studies was caryophyllene tested on humans or in inhaled form from dried material; both papers concern oral or systemic administration in mice in pain and inflammation models, not sleep or mood.
The conclusion drawn from this is cautious. Caryophyllene has a documented point of attachment in the CB2 receptor, while transitions from rodent to patient inhaling vapor from dried material have not been performed. The presence of this compound in the profile of Animal Rntz thus only indicates that the strain contains a separately studied component.
Is there a specific list of side effects for Animal Rntz?
No, there is not. Safety oversight assigns a report to a specific drug package along with the batch designation, and the trade name of the cultivar does not appear in this registry. There is no separate compilation for this position, and with the current reporting method, it cannot be built. The following description pertains to dried material in general.
Reports of side effects are collected for a medicinal product with a batch number, not for the strain name, so the following pertains to cannabis flower as a group of raw materials. The most commonly reported are dry mouth, red eyes, and increased heart rate. Less frequently described are dizziness upon rapid standing, daytime drowsiness, and transient worsening of short-term memory, as well as anxiety that increases with dosage. A separate issue is medications taken concurrently, especially sedatives and those affecting coagulation: their assessment requires knowledge of the entire list of preparations, not just the description of the plant. We do not provide the frequency of these symptoms numerically, as public compilations for cannabis flower in Poland do not separate them by individual products.
A typical list for Animal Rntz cannot be constructed from this, and an attempt to compile it would mislead the reader. The strain differs from others in profile composition and declared potency, but there is no study showing that any of the above reactions occur more or less frequently after it. Tolerance is assessed by the physician who knows the rest of the preparations being taken.
What is known about the evaporation of terpenes from dried material with such a profile?
Less than popular temperature tables suggest. Caryophyllene has a boiling point in the PubChem database marked with the pressure at which it was measured, while humulene has only a reading under reduced pressure, and such numbers cannot be compared in one column without misleading the reader about their comparability.
The example of humulene shows the scale of the problem. The database provides for it 99-100 degrees, but at a pressure of 3 mm Hg, that is, under conditions close to vacuum. The same number transferred to a table next to values measured under atmospheric pressure ceases to be a rounding and simply becomes a falsehood.
The very concept of the evaporation temperature of a terpene is based on a misunderstanding. A substance evaporates long before reaching its boiling point, as the rate of evaporation depends on the vapor pressure increasing exponentially with temperature, while the boiling point is only the moment when this pressure equals the surrounding pressure. A separate issue remains the difference between the device setting and the temperature of the material itself, which exists and has not been publicly measured. We expand on this in a study about the evaporation of terpenes from dried material.
Therefore, we do not provide any range as appropriate for Animal Rntz. The method of administration is determined by the attending physician, and the raw material is dispensed by prescription in the Rpw category. There is also no study indicating how much caryophyllene from dried material reaches the lungs and then the bloodstream in humans during vaporization.
Which cultivars share one parent with Animal Rntz?
| Strain | Common parent | Leading terpene | Producers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Animintz | Animal Cookies | myrcene | S-LAB |
| Zookies | Animal Cookies | caryophyllene | Medalchemy |
Two strains: Animintz and Zookies. Both share one parent with Animal Rntz, which is Animal Cookies, and both are sometimes available in Polish pharmacies, so the kinship here is not just a breeding curiosity. Siblings in this comparison number only 29 out of 85 described cultivars.
| Strain | Parents | Producer | Dominant terpene |
|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Rntz | Animal Cookies x Runtz | S-LAB | caryophyllene |
| Animintz | Animal Cookies x SinMint Cookies | S-LAB | myrcene |
| Zookies | Animal Cookies x Gorilla Glue #4 | Medalchemy | caryophyllene |
The parents of Animintz are Animal Cookies and SinMint Cookies, and it is led to pharmacies by the same producer as Animal Rntz. The profile has been described for it from one source, and it leads with myrcene instead of caryophyllene, so despite the common parent, both positions diverge in descriptions. We write about it separately.
Zookies has as parents Animal Cookies and Gorilla Glue #4 and is supplied to pharmacies by a different producer. Here, the leading position in the profile is caryophyllene, just like in Animal Rntz, while the THC content is not provided by the source along with tolerance, so for that strain, we do not quote any number. Details are collected in a separate description.
It is worth adding what kinship in this graph means and what it does not. A common parent being a landrace or a broad family style does not create siblings, as these are categories, not identified strains. Animal Cookies, however, is a specific, named position, which is why we considered the connection between these three cultivars to be real. However, it does not imply that they act the same.
Frequently asked questions about Animal Rntz
Is Animal Rntz available in Polish pharmacies?
Yes, in one version branded by S-LAB. However, availability changes over time with subsequent deliveries, so the current state is checked in the list of available strains, not in the description of the strain itself.
What is the lineage of Animal Rntz?
The parents are Animal Cookies and Runtz. This lineage is consistently provided by three independent descriptions of this cultivar, which is not a rule in this cluster: for 25 out of 85 strains, the origin remains undetermined.
How much THC does Animal Rntz contain?
The declared content is in the range of 16.2-19.8%. We provide it as a range because the permissible deviation from the declared value can reach ten percent, and a specific batch falls somewhere within this window.
Which terpene leads in the profile of Animal Rntz?
According to the only available profile description, the leading position is caryophyllene. Alongside it, humulene, limonene, linalool, and pinene are mentioned. We do not provide percentage shares, as sources do not disclose the denominator to which they refer.
Has the effect of Animal Rntz been tested on humans?
No. No study has been published dedicated to this cultivar. Available papers concern isolated caryophyllene administered to mice in pain and inflammation models, which does not allow for conclusions about the effects of the whole dried material in humans.
Which strains are related to Animal Rntz?
Animintz and Zookies. All three share a common parent, which is Animal Cookies, and all three are sometimes present in Polish pharmacies, although supplied by two different producers.
Can Animal Rntz be purchased without a prescription?
No. Cannabis flower remains a pharmaceutical raw material dispensed only by prescription, in the Rpw category, and the appropriateness and method of use are determined by the attending physician.
This material is for informational purposes only and does not replace medical advice. Cannabis flower remains a pharmaceutical raw material dispensed by prescription in the Rpw category, and the appropriateness of therapy is determined by the attending physician. Editorial: ubucha.
