Testing Thc Levels Through Metro Detroit Labs. Not Consistent.

[Seefdro]

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?

Edited February 19, 2015 by Seefdro

[pic book]

on the web, one can find blue dream tests reported at 6%, 10%, 16%, and 22% thc.

[trichcycler]

each bud, on each stem, on each plant can produce varying results depending on factors like par light availability/ light color/temp, air, health, air temperature, humidity,  c02 availability, etc

[t-pain]

grassmatch has the correct answer. but he forgot soil and water ph 

 

the way its dried/cured will also affect thc.

 

its also possible that different ways of testing will give different results,

gas chromatography (GC)

thin layer chromatography (TLC)

High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph HPLC

 

"HPLC is preferred over GC because it does not apply heat in the testing process, allowing cannabinoids to be measured in their naturally occurring forms. This means acidic (CBD-a, THC-a, etc.) and neutral cannabinoids (CBD, THC, CBG, CBN, etc.) can be differentiated and enumerated in a sample."

 

no idea if accurate. good luck

Edited February 19, 2015 by t-pain

[Restorium2]

 with very similar conditions throughout 

 

You caught them lying. Testing is much harder than lying and lying works better for them most of the time. Occams Razor applies.

[t-pain]

yeah, the labs (or disps) could be fudging the numbers.

[Norby]

THC can vary as much as 10% over the entire plant.  That's quite within range.  Esp if some were bottoms and some were tops.  Esp if it was grown outdoors.  I bet a lot of those were Quantacann?  They only do it by taking pics and applying them to what they have on file.  You don't even see into the bud.  Also, if there were different moisture contents they would be different.

 

I can see how someone would go strait to considering them lying but if you understand the process, you'll see there can easily be that variation.  I wouldn't be so quick to call anyone a liar.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Restorium2]

THC can vary as much as 10% over the entire plant.  That's quite within range.  Esp if some were bottoms and some were tops.  Esp if it was grown outdoors.  I bet a lot of those were Quantacann?  They only do it by taking pics and applying them to what they have on file.  You don't even see into the bud.  Also, if there were different moisture contents they would be different.

 

I can see how someone would go strait to considering them lying but if you understand the process, you'll see there can easily be that variation.  I wouldn't be so quick to call anyone a liar.

I'm sure the OP tried to make the samples the same. Why not? You would have to be clueless to not give 'like' samples if you were trying to see if they are lying. They were caught lying by the OP just like they have done in other states. You see it in the news and posted here. 

[Norby]

If they were from different plants even the light spacing could've affected one top to another.  I'm glad your so confident in him and not in the dispensaries(kinda fits your world view from what I've seen). It's an imperfect science though and you can not be sure they erred purposefully.  What good would it do them to tell him his bud is 19% when it's 12%?  If they buy from him and someone comes in and asks THC level on it and the 2 don't match i'd think something is up.  But if they have the machine, why flub the results?  Why would they make up a number and possibly pay more than it's worth.  It just doesn't make sense if you take it apart.

 

I know you want the dispensaries to be the bad guys but if you don't look at the logic and just blame everything on them, no one will believe anything you say, like I have come to believe.  You can only say the sky is falling so much till no one believes you.

 

And Resto I'll edit as much as I like.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Restorium2]

If they were from different plants even the light spacing could've affected one top to another.  I'm glad your so confident in him and not in the dispensaries(kinda fits your world view from what I've seen). It's an imperfect science though and you can not be sure they erred purposefully.  What good would it do them to tell him his bud is 19% when it's 12%?

I do trust individuals more than business. I'm a product of my environment on that score. 

 

I have a history of growing, have had some college chemistry and understand the science of testing better than you do from what you have been posting. You are full of bad excuses for the labs. 

[Restorium2]

Write a new post rather than editing what has been replied to. 

[flower pharm]

I think theyre fudged , if they get a batch of nice top shelf looking bud it gets higher numbers and higher prices, regardless of actual test results

[Norby]

If they send them to Iron Labs, you don't have that problem.  Independent 3rd party.

[Norby]

I do trust individuals more than business. I'm a product of my environment on that score. 

 

I have a history of growing, have had some college chemistry and understand the science of testing better than you do from what you have been posting. You are full of bad excuses for the labs. 

And you are terrible with terminology.  A dispensary with a machine is not a lab.  I'm not saying they couldn't have flubbed it but why?  At least give me a reason as to why they would benefit?  The only benefit I see is lying to the seller to get it cheap and then telling the customers the right #'s.  A lot have the THC content right on their online menu.  How could they hide it?  If someone sold to a dispense and was told it was 12% THC and their friend went in the next day and said they had it listed at 20%, then I'd believe.  But all we have is a bunch of different samples sent to different labs/dispensaries.  Contamination from former tests could give off results.  I'd be much more apt to say the equipment was faulty as I see no benefit in giving wrong results if tehy are buying it unless they give the right results when selling.  Either way they are going to want to know how much THC is in it since you can't tell from looking or unless you've sampled it.  Maybe if you explained the scam to me i'd understand and say it's plausible.  But "this is what I've experienced and know, believe me", doesn't work for me. Sorry.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Restorium2]

If they send them to Iron Labs, you don't have that problem.  Independent 3rd party.

So always use at least two independant labs. Gotcha. 

[Norby]

No, because when you use the sample it gets destroyed.  You can't use the same sample twice, which always gives you a slightly different #. All you need is one test from an independent lab.  If you want to get the "range" of THC in your plant, sure, do more tests. And don't use quantacann unless it's for cheap fun.

Dispensaries don't even ask if I'm getting a test to sell to them.  I'd like to know how they are going to get iron labs to flub tests for them?  Esp from people who aren't selling to the dispensaries, because there are a LOT of tests that aren't for selling to dispensaries.

Of course there is no lilly white across the board in any business, so I'd think that maybe you got a bad business or 2 who did flub them, esp since I haven't been to dispensaries in the D. But the tests are within range, with maybe a contamination or 2.  There is NO evidence that tests were purposefully flubbed.  Machines aren't perfect either.  Then there is human error on weights and moisture levels.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Restorium2]

No, because when you use the sample it gets destroyed.  You can't use the same sample twice, which always gives you a slightly different #. All you need is one test from an independent lab.  If you want to get the "range" of THC in your plant, sure, do more tests. And don't use quantacann unless it's for cheap fun.

Anyone with a tiny bit of grow knowledge and common sense can make 'like samples'. It's not hard at all. Next excuse please.

[Norby]

Sorry, Resto, as much as you like, you'll never have proof.  Funny I didn't know about sample differences till I got here and started testing.  Just because you know doesn't make it common knowledge.  Again machines err.

 

It's so funny how you think that saying, any grower knows how to make like samples, somehow proves something.  Shows why I won't ever trust your view.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Restorium2]

Sorry, Resto, as much as you like, you'll never have proof.  Funny I didn't know about sample differences till I got here and started testing.  Just because you know doesn't make it common knowledge.  Again machines err.

Right. I like your idea of using two labs that are independant. Makes sense. I always agree with common sense when presented. Keep em honest.

[Norby]

I don't see where he says he made like samples.  When I dry all the buds go on trays.  Now I hold out tops for testing because I used bottoms for one test and that's how I found out there is a difference.  He even said some came from different plants.  Sorry, no conclusive evidence I can see.

[Norby]

Right. I like your idea of using two labs that are independant. Makes sense. I always agree with common sense when presented. Keep em honest.

Why when one will do?

  If you use top samples for one and bottom for another test, it'll come out different.  If a dispense sends it to a lab, they aren't going to conspire to fake results. Too much at risk.  See if you can take that common sense?

Don't take tests to dispensaries that test onsite, if it's that important.  I know someone who calibrated a machine for a dispensary.  It's much more likely they aren't running the machine right if results vary.

 

I know people who work with all these machines(not in the MJ industry, except one that fixed one for a dispense).  I've had beers and talked at length with them.  My wife has run all these machines used for testing.  I know more than you think.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Restorium2]

We have seen confirmed results where labs have cheated on the tests. It's published. It happens. It's going to happen. Discrediting the OP doesn't change that at all. 

[Norby]

Who is discrediting the op?  He's ASKING for feedback.

And these are LABS that are cheating, not individual dispensaries with on site testing?

  I said that some could've been wrong thru machine errors AND that not there will always be some bad players in any business, but for some reason you want to point out dispensaries have cheated before?  You just have a bad view of dispensaries, all of them, so I'll keep that in mind whenever conversing with you that your view is probably biased.  Do you have links to this proof you speak of?  Or maybe that was just the conclusion YOU came to from teh evidence presented?

When you start to attack me I leave the conversation!

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Restorium2]

Who is discrediting the op?  He's ASKING for feedback. And these are LABS that are cheating, not individual dispensaries with on site testing?

When you start to attack me I leave the conversation!

Saying he doesn't know how to make 'like samples' is discrediting. Maybe you can make that stick. I'm not so sure you are right about that. Fact is we know labs cheat even if you discredit this guy, it's published material.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Restorium2

[Norby]

Humans err.  I was pointing out possibilities but you somehow take that as an attack?  He said genetics were all from the same plant but samples were from different plants and never said they were all tops or bottoms.  Maybe he lays it all out on a screen and picks randomly, like I did.  Don't see how that's in any way a shot at him as it was a mistake I made?

 

And I never said it was a definite mistake, I think there was a maybe in there.  Nope never said he DID pick from all over the plant just put it out there as a possibility.  Along with outdoors varying even more.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby