Testing Thc Levels Through Metro Detroit Labs. Not Consistent.

[Restorium2]

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.

No attack, just an attempt to discredit his results because you think you know more than he does. I know testing too and I can see how his idea could work quite well with a little common sense. 

[Zekie]

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

This answer is spot on!  The same plant will inevitably give you different readings due to light saturation issues.  Additionally, how the plant was harvested is a huge factor.

 

For example, assuming the whole plant is chopped at the same time:

 

If the plant was harvested where the trichomes were mostly orange to cloudy on the main cola, some of the trichomes on the inner buds may still be clear to partly cloudy.  This would give you readings that would greatly vary.

 

If the cola's are harvested and then the plant is able to grow for another week:

 

When harvested in this fashion, light can get down into the places that were shaded by the huge cola's. This enables trichomes on the inner buds to have a chance to absorb more light, causing them to mature while making the trichomes orange/mostly cloudy.

 

There are so many factors as the folks here have mentioned.  Hope this helps you out!

 

Peace,

Z

[suneday11]

.

Edited April 27, 2015 by suneday11

[Restorium2]

I like to use patients for testing.

 

For example; I can take one of my OG Kush plants and harvest a bud off of any part of it and get the same patient results as long as it's harvested at the same time.

 

Now that does not jive with what is being claimed here with machine testing. 

[Dr Gruber]

I've been testing all my strains at Iron labs for a while now and my findings support what some of you guys are saying. It all depends on the ripeness of the particular bud. If i let the bottom buds go longer in days to get to the same maturity level of buds from the top, they test close to the same.

Also, I've been finding the THC levels are almost higher earlier in the harvest window. So, if i have 4 buds that are equally ripe, the 2 buds i pick at 55 days will test higher then the 2 i pick at 65 days.

 

For me and my patients its hard to notice the difference between 19% and 22% and to be honest I know of a lot of people that prefer strains that are around 14-16%. 

I think that might account for Restorium2's patients having good results with different THC levels and that the lab results are still accurate.

[Seefdro]

Ahh, many good responses! Thanks for the feedback.

 

Need to clear up a few key points.

 

This was based on a conversation regarding overages going to Detroit dispensaries (perhaps one or two in Ann Arbor?). There not my overages.

 

Based on the conversation I was not told if all the plants in question were harvested at once. That said, knowing this CG I would presume so.

 

These plants were fairly large at harvest. There very well could be varying degrees, multiple factors. So based on where the flower in question grew. Top, middle, bottom, etc... (via that particular test sample).... Makes sense to me.

 

The samples were done independently through Detroit dispensaries, perhaps one or two out of Ann Arbor.-- Was not told which ones, just told there were several dispensaries which tested exact same batch of plant material. Again "same" may have variables when testing THC among other MM tested plant components.

 

It appears the only one who may be at fault is those who don't understand these testing variables. Perhaps the labs by not understanding these variable within the plant? Maybe they do, but that's not there service or responsibility. As they are just used for a means to test what is at hand.

 

Not attempting to offend any lab or individual, that's not my intent.

 

The lab in question is Iron Labs. Again, I am not mocking their service or there ability to properly test plant material. It's just an interesting question which really did play out recently. Thought you all enjoy brainstorming on the matter.

 

Seems this is a question for the general MM public as they should be aware that what you see posted (tested results) could be very skewed. A good MM patient/CG is a well informed one, right?

 

Again thanks for the feedback... AND appreciate any additional thoughts you may have regarding THC testing variables.

[Restorium2]

The lab in question is Iron Labs.

 

Thanks.

[Restorium2]

I've been testing all my strains at Iron labs for a while now and my findings support what some of you guys are saying. It all depends on the ripeness of the particular bud. If i let the bottom buds go longer in days to get to the same maturity level of buds from the top, they test close to the same.

Also, I've been finding the THC levels are almost higher earlier in the harvest window. So, if i have 4 buds that are equally ripe, the 2 buds i pick at 55 days will test higher then the 2 i pick at 65 days.

 

For me and my patients its hard to notice the difference between 19% and 22% and to be honest I know of a lot of people that prefer strains that are around 14-16%. 

I think that might account for Restorium2's patients having good results with different THC levels and that the lab results are still accurate.

The discrepancies reported were greater than what you are describing here. 

[Restorium2]

Also, I've been finding the THC levels are almost higher earlier in the harvest window. So, if i have 4 buds that are equally ripe, the 2 buds i pick at 55 days will test higher then the 2 i pick at 65 days.

 

Changes from THC to CBD and CBN. You need a real patient to decide what these do for them. Makes the machines a little useless.

[Restorium2]

So a high THC reading from a lab can indicate that the buds have not matured to the point of their greatest potential for a lot of patients. Labs are just guessing at what patients will find with any sample.

[Dr Gruber]

The discrepancies reported were greater than what you are describing here. 

Sure they are but im not harvesting the entire plant at the same time and testing it. It makes a lot of sense to me that a bottom bud picked on the same day as a top bud would have the numbers you describe.

 

Also, I've been finding the THC levels are almost higher earlier in the harvest window. So, if i have 4 buds that are equally ripe, the 2 buds i pick at 55 days will test higher then the 2 i pick at 65 days.

 

Changes from THC to CBD and CBN. You need a real patient to decide what these do for them. Makes the machines a little useless.

 

I have a number of patients. The machine isn't useless you just have to use the findings properly. I can track which strains work best for my patients and at what harvest date/THC-CBD level works best for them. I can take that info and use it in the future when picking strains and knowing when to harvest my current strains.

I like more information, not less.

[Restorium2]

 I can take that info and use it in the future when picking strains 

 

Each strain is different. These test results do not cross reference well between strains. They only help you with repeatability, if even that. 

[Dr Gruber]

 I can take that info and use it in the future when picking strains 

 

Each strain is different. These test results do not cross reference well between strains. They only help you with repeatability, if even that. 

 

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

[trichcycler]

lab haters hatin'..

 

in all seriousness though it does depend on patients, it being the final result.

 

but labs are a good rule of record when tracking terpene profiles, including thc and cbd/cbn etc.  breeders can count on these results and they make the [unnets square puter program work much easier. 

 

I don't waste money anymore, because I don't really care about the numbers anymore. I did in the beginning, cultured my records, and keep my room the same. Results are close enough for this dirt farmer, patients love the menu, and often allow me to choose the  strains for their delivery.

[Norby]

Ahh, many good responses! Thanks for the feedback.

 

Need to clear up a few key points.

 

This was based on a conversation regarding overages going to Detroit dispensaries (perhaps one or two in Ann Arbor?). There not my overages.

 

Based on the conversation I was not told if all the plants in question were harvested at once. That said, knowing this CG I would presume so.

 

These plants were fairly large at harvest. There very well could be varying degrees, multiple factors. So based on where the flower in question grew. Top, middle, bottom, etc... (via that particular test sample).... Makes sense to me.

 

The samples were done independently through Detroit dispensaries, perhaps one or two out of Ann Arbor.-- Was not told which ones, just told there were several dispensaries which tested exact same batch of plant material. Again "same" may have variables when testing THC among other MM tested plant components.

 

It appears the only one who may be at fault is those who don't understand these testing variables. Perhaps the labs by not understanding these variable within the plant? Maybe they do, but that's not there service or responsibility. As they are just used for a means to test what is at hand.

 

Not attempting to offend any lab or individual, that's not my intent.

 

The lab in question is Iron Labs. Again, I am not mocking their service or there ability to properly test plant material. It's just an interesting question which really did play out recently. Thought you all enjoy brainstorming on the matter.

 

Seems this is a question for the general MM public as they should be aware that what you see posted (tested results) could be very skewed. A good MM patient/CG is a well informed one, right?

 

Again thanks for the feedback... AND appreciate any additional thoughts you may have regarding THC testing variables.

Test results are not skewed, the THC present in different parts of the plant is what skewes it.  Yes we are not getting the amount labeled in any bud you get, they are all different than 22.53% or whatever the test shows.  Big plants = big variation.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Norby]

Because you can gleam info from it.  It's just a tool.  If you grow plants with only tops, less variation.  If you are looking to breed and get hi CBD phenos, the use is priceless.  From a standpoint of higher THC, there is a big difference in getting 22% tests.  I imagine lower thc variants are going to be in a smaller range of variation.  If you are just looking for hi THC, then your looking wrong in the first place, unless your looking for hi THC specifically to cure cancer or some other reason where you want hi THC levels.  You can take buds from different parts of the plant like DR gruber and get an idea how your plants actually are rather than guessing.  As for using THC content for pricing, what other way are you going to use?  Just how it affects YOU(not yelling just pointing out subjectivity)?  There has to be something as a start to base your ratings on.  Since THC is the ingredient that is illegal and activates things, why not test #'s.  I agree that there are certain terpenes that make THC amount useless from a "hi" perspective as a 12% can feel more potent than a 20% without certain terpenes.  From there you look towards how much was bottom and how much was top, etc.  Or CBD levels since some want all of one and none of the other.  It's ALL in knowing how it works AND knowing quality.  Higher terpene content can be more important than the amount of THC from a subjective level(what works for a patient).

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Highlander]

I'd need more info regarding testing standards and QA/QC reports before I could feel confident in lab reports for cannabis. A big issue is moisture content. Are samples dried before analysis or does the lab make adjustments for moisture content when reporting results? If samples are dried first, how is that done and does the method result in loss of cannabinoids? What are acceptable ranges for blanks and surrogates? I've worked with certified labs for 20 years or so. When the labs follow EPA standards they still have acceptable margins of error. In many cases, the margin of error is considered acceptable under published standards if the error is within a +\- range of 20 percent. Applying this to cannabis, a lab could report a result at 20% and the error range would say the results are good if the actual content is between 16 and 24%. That's a pretty wide range.

 

Lab results mean absolutely nothing without QA/QC data.

 

I think of lab testing somewhat like golf driving ranges. Many driving range operators place yardage signs too close to the tee. This makes the customer feel good about his use of the facility and that "feel good" feeling is likely to encourage him to return. The same applies to a lab. If the lab reports 24% THC on a sample that is closer to 20%, the customer is more likely to have positive feelings about the money he spent and then be more likely to use the service again.

 

It is basic marketing.

[Norby]

Yes, they are dried before, by the grower, and a moisture content is given.

 

Their lab reports for say Cannatonic #4 don't vary much, from generally 11-14% and I turned in a sample of what I thought was cannatonic #4 which wasn't.  It tested at 14% THC and I asked who I got it from and it turned out it wasn't cannatonic #4.  Since I already take a bunch of THC, generally with the CBD, and it wasn't that "potent" I wouldn't have known unless the anxiety got bad, and I'd think it wasn't working.  Someone taking CBD for a specific purpose(say a child's epilepsy) would have problems if buying from a dispensary that wasn't testing and getting from different sources, and a problem occurred.

 

But your right, all reasons to see skewed results that wouldn't be from the dispensary being shady.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Norby]

Really, it's all about knowing that results vary, the plant varies and what are you looking for from it.  Yes, definitely useless to some.  But no, it's real science using real machines that are used for other scientific studies.  Knowing which machines and methods are used and who is running them will get you more info about how accurate the results may be.  Knowing how big the plant was and how far from teh light and what wattage would tell you more about the range of THC found in your bag though.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Norby

[Restorium2]

Moisture is not a factor with real testing. H2O is just a component to be measured and factored into the equation. It can be used to skew the results ONLY if that is the testers intent. It's easy to give acurate results that are not effected by moisture content if that is your goal. You just use a moisture content base line and make all your results conform to that. If you know the science of testing cannabis then you don't even bring up moisture content. It doesn't matter to a good tech.

[trichcycler]

My moisture content was always measured and factored, and displayed in the results of the cannabis tests. I considered it useless info because I already knew the moisture content, but others reading the results were curious for sure. If they didn't test for h20 the tech would have to leave that spot blank on the result card too.

 

who gets bragging rites if a personal cannabis test was skewed?  are we entering results into the cannabis cup, or selling seeds/clones ?

I thought those results were a baseline to establish desirable traits for reporting and breeding. I saw one testing facility who publishes the results, both good and bad online by default. no bs there I think.  ("here man, here's a doobie, just lie and write down 35%thc, ok man") really?

[Restorium2]

Real testing takes time, decent equipment plus the knowledge to use it. There could be any number of reasons why results are bad/wrong/lies. Use your imagination. It's happening, no doubt about it. I'm sure each situation carries it's own incentive/reason for wrong test results. To say there's no motive is just fooling yourself. 

[Highlander]

I've worked with environmental labs for about two decades.  And with this experience, I've learned how easily lab results can be skewed based on the sample collection methods.  Here's a good example.  The EPA has published sample collection and analysis protocols for just about any scenario.  Let's focus on analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)  (examples would be gasoline and dry cleaning solvents.)  Under EPA sampling method 5035, if you are sampling for VOCs, you take about 10 grams of a soil sample and place it in a container with about 10 grams of methyl alcohol.  The methyl alcohol extracts the VOCs, and the lab does an analysis on the total VOCs in that liquid sample and then back calculates a dry weight concentration based on liquid results compared to the dry weight of the sample.  Here's the rub.  I can collect a 10-gram sample of homogenous soil and drop it into a jar with methanol and get  a pretty solid result.  Or, I might collect a soil sample that consists of 8 grams of soil with a 2-gram rock included.  The rock won't have much, if any, VOCs included.  So by dropping a 2-gram rock into my sample, I can skew the lab results to reflect a 20% reduction in the final VOC analysis. 

 

But, the EPA requires third-party validation, which evaluates the validity of lab results in light of sample collection methods.   So tossing a rock into the sample would be called-out by the third-party evaluator.

 

The point is, in order to end up with solid lab results, we need to be able to document the entire process, from sample collection to analysis.  The EPA requires third-party evaluation of the sample collection and analysis methods to make sure that the final result is actually indicative of real conditions.

 

If a cannabis testing lab can consider and account for these matters and can produce results that can be verified by a third-party, then maybe we have a solid result.  The lab needs to be able to produce QA/QC data that can be evaluated by a third party.  Otherwise, any testing result should be considered for entertainment purposes only.

[garyfisher]

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. 

Proof of this or is this heresay?

[garyfisher]

Moisture is not a factor with real testing. H2O is just a component to be measured and factored into the equation. It can be used to skew the results ONLY if that is the testers intent. It's easy to give acurate results that are not effected by moisture content if that is your goal. You just use a moisture content base line and make all your results conform to that. If you know the science of testing cannabis then you don't even bring up moisture content. It doesn't matter to a good tech.

How many HPLCs have you personally used? 

Edited February 20, 2015 by garyfisher