Jump to content

Testing Thc Levels Through Metro Detroit Labs. Not Consistent.


Seefdro

Recommended Posts

How many HPLCs have you personally used? 

None. But I know chemistry. I know how to calculate the molarity of a solution so the H2O content is just a calculation. I would decide on a fixed molarity and make all samples conform to that ratio. It's simple chemistry. The only reason to even have an H2O content on the label would be for determining how it would work in certain applications like smoking. Not using a baseline H2O ratio for all your calculations would lead to total confusion with test results. 

For example; If one sample has twice the percentage of H2O then you reduce the equation to your set percentage. It's just measuring and understanding the basic building blocks. There's no fooling anyone with different moisture contents. Not after it is tested. Moisture content makes no difference once you know the solution components. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does decarboxylation play a factor in test results? As a consumer there's a huge difference between smoking a bud 10 days off the vine vs a bud from the same plant three months later.

 

Would the same machine running the same process produce different results three months later on the same cola?

As a patient I know that all the 'nuances' we experience are not explained by the machine test results we see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they aren't able to identity and quantify terpenes and they change over time. It would be awesome to understand more why a 17% thc cured bud floors me over a 27% thc fresh bud.

 

From what I've learned the difference is terpenes and patiently waiting for chlorophyll to drop the carbon atom ie. Decarboxylation (curing)

Because about one third of the THC has converted to CBD, CBN, and other things that haven't been totally understood by machines yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most marijuana testing labs use substandard equipment needed for truly accurate testing.

 

They are not using proper sampling methods.

 

They will even admit they can test the exact same sample and range +-20% on the exact same sample.

 

Then add in the variances over an entire plant, the grow method, etc etc and the lab not properly taking sample of an entire batch.

 

 

Fact is, most labs are shooting in the dark with improper testing standards, getting wide variances in their own results, averaging their results to give a number and in all honesty,... it is no more accurate than the guy guessin someones weight at the carnival.

 

Iron labs said they have gotten their testing down to a +-10% variance with their recently new equipment. On the testing side.  Add in all other variances,... it just isn't accurate and barely useful.  They only do visual testing for molds as well.  *shrug*

 

 Fact is, quit wasting your money unless it is for entertainment value.  Otherwise, sniff it, smell it, smoke it and you can be just as accurate.

 

 I would say, inaccuracies  are not necessarily intentional,  but wrong and not done properly most oft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labs can and do quantify and identify terpene profiles in cannabis samples.

 

(http://thewercshop.com/services/terpene-profiling-services/) for example

 

This is true and can be done 100% accurately very easily.  You would have to use a GC with FID detection system.  A GC will absolutely quantify every single constituent within the mixture including residues.  However, GC cannot measure active THC/CBD components accurately due to the FID(heat) but would give total decarbed cannabinoid profile. 

 

If GC was used in conjunction with HPLC, a lab could give you a full terpene profile as well as accurate THC/CBD data.  I doubt many labs are running  both techniques.  The reason they can't quantify terpenes with HPLC is because all terpenes are not known and you would need a chemical standard for each one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most marijuana testing labs use substandard equipment needed for truly accurate testing.

 

They are not using proper sampling methods.

 

They will even admit they can test the exact same sample and range +-20% on the exact same sample.

 

Then add in the variances over an entire plant, the grow method, etc etc and the lab not properly taking sample of an entire batch.

 

 

Fact is, most labs are shooting in the dark with improper testing standards, getting wide variances in their own results, averaging their results to give a number and in all honesty,... it is no more accurate than the guy guessin someones weight at the carnival.

 

Iron labs said they have gotten their testing down to a +-10% variance with their recently new equipment. On the testing side.  Add in all other variances,... it just isn't accurate and barely useful.  They only do visual testing for molds as well.  *shrug*

 

 Fact is, quit wasting your money unless it is for entertainment value.  Otherwise, sniff it, smell it, smoke it and you can be just as accurate.

 

 I would say, inaccuracies  are not necessarily intentional,  but wrong and not done properly most oft.

Add in the other variables?  If you grow mostly tops, the variance isn't that much over the plant on THC levels. If your getting a measure of 25% THC your going to know it's got much more THC than one measuring 8%.  And THC/CBD ratios are good to know even if it's off by a percent or 2(since they are lower in each teh measurement should be more precise).  Sorry you only see it as entertainment.  It's a useful tool, esp if you want as much THC as possible to do something like cure cancer.  Or if your looking for CBD meds for a toddler. Or if you want the lowest CBD possible(0% if possible) to get all the painkilling power of THC without any counteracting it with CBD.

 

And if you are only talking cash paid for THC levels, most dispensaries don't do it that way as they have ranges of THC levels on each tier/shelf they stock according to quality and affect, not just THC levels.

 

And they find mold and report it thru visual inspection.  Was it you or Resto who said all you need is a loupe to see if there is mold that would be harmful.  I think they even use a dissecting scope and are trained to see it.  Do you think detecting it thrru machine would be better with the accuracies you think they have?  I'd think a visual inspection would be better than the machines from what you have said.  Even so a person spending time looking for mold is a good deal for the cost of a test.

Edited by Norby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say +-10% it's 10% of the level found not 10% variance as in a 10% test is somewhere between 5% and 15%.  a test that shows 10% THC and is within 10% variance means it's actually between 9-11% (10% of 10thc value in a test is 1% + or - or the actual level of a 10% THC reading is 9 to 11% THC and it get's more accurate as the % goes down where a 1% reading should be actually between .9% and 1.1%)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know and understand this topic extensively.

 

 When all variables are added together,.. it becomes at best minorly helpful for certain things.  But for a label in a dispensary? The variables explode at that point.

 

 The simple sitting of the cannabis on a shelf for a couple weeks will change the levels. 

 

 Can this stuff be done REALLY well, and have minor end variances? Somewhat.

 

 But almost no one in the country is using the needed equipment for that. *shrug*

 

 Colorado only requires testing of 10 lb batches.  Seems accurate?

 

 Grow to grow. Plant to plant. Tops to middles to bottoms. All different. 

 

 Most of what is in question can be determined without testing.  Does it have 5% thc or 15%?  I don't need a machine to tell me.  ;-)

 

 What type of flavonoids and terpenes?  I can narrow it down perty darn close without a machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question has be presented to me regarding lab testing in metro Detroit. This is an interesting one.

 

Key point one: Same set of cloned genetic.

 

Key point two: In this grow room (with same cloned pheno of flower material) with very similar conditions throughout testing results vary from 16% THC to 25% levels.

 

Key point three: Material tested was via various Detroti dispensaries accounts through well know metro-Detroti lab. Same group of medicinal material (overages) donated throughout dispensaries

 

Will hold back my view as to why the testing variables occurred.

 

Listen, no biggie if its a percent or two.... OR even three. BUT when it's four, five and bordering six. It's makes for a good question.

 

Anyone takers in helping to solve THC levels testing mystery?

 

Yall are being extremely vague in this "proof".  From what I've gathered from this thread, a mono crop of several cannabis plants was cropped out, sold to multiple dispensaries and then each dispensary had the herb tested at Iron. A variance of 10% was discovered.  Conclusions were made.

 

 

How then were the samples selected to send to the dispensary? Were samples selected randomly? Did the same individual select the samples?  Was sample selection from exact same bud?   Were samples selected from different plants? Was there any variation from each sample compared to distance from bulb?  Did all dispensaries send out sample on same day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...