High THC strains 20% and up.

[DRorganic]

who ever said indacas are stronger needs to smoke some pure sativa and then make that statement. sativas are the shit when it comes to potency . like i can have a 5hr buzz on a sativa and mybe if you are lucky a 1-2 hr buzz on a indaca. and with indacas you have to keep lighting up every 2hrs to keep a high. not with say neville haze or super silver haze or kalimist,mango haze by mr.nice.

 

[Baba Ku]

See, if you had stayed at a Holiday Inn like me, you would have known this stuff and wouldn't have to look stupid when you call bullshit.


Samples are samples, and when we see a percentage listed, it was NOT to list it's greatest potential in resin content. It was only reflecting the results of a SINGLE TEST they had run. No more, no less. If the breeder wants a better test, he grows it the bet he can and resubmits. It is as simple as that.
Another simple thing is to KNOW that when a sample is vaporized that the whole sample hits the gas, not just the resin glands.
Want to test some motor oil to know the precise additives? Guess how they do it...
And not only is a test subject to the ability and methods of the tester, it is also dependent on the correct calibration of the equipment. The certified tester has controls in place to double check his work and his lab. All others beware. In the eyes of those who regularly have things tested this way, any and all labs that are doing work without certified testers and equipment are in league with snake oil salesmen and trail whores.
When you go to your fresh super duper canna lab next time, ask for papers and see what you get.
I see another racket in the making.

 

[krunchbubble]

This is just your ill-informed opinion. Repeating it over and over is doing nothing but bringing down the level of intelligent discourse that makes this site so special.

Look at the attachment I provided in post #28. It's from a reputable testing facility.

There is only one legitimate argument you could make if you don't think a strain that GC/MS tests at ~20% actually contains that much THC by weight, and that would be to contest the standards used to calibrate the testing equipment.

I'll spell it out for you so there's no more confusion:

To be able to measure the percentage of THC in a sample, you need to first have a sample of pure THC for comparison. Currently, the best standards are available through the US government, and measure somewhere in the 99.9% THC range. More than sufficient for accuracy, if you ask me. Assuming we're talking about people who really want to obtain the most precise empirical data possible, it just wouldn't be in researchers' best interest to overstate the purity of their calibration standards.

In relation to the available standards, Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectroscopy/Spectrometry are very, very accurate testing procedures so long as they are carried out by well-trained technicians. Why you continue to argue with well-established scientific methods is beyond me...

that was #29 brother!

but ya, anyone who really wants to know just call up steep hill labs and ask! stop the arguing!

 

[Baba Ku]

lol...fuckin' stoners

Potency Analysis

Steep Hill Lab analyzes and determines the percentage of THC, CBD, and CBN in each sample of cannabis.

http://steephilllab.com/about/equipment/

 

[G.O. Joe]

What you mean they don't sit down with a microscope and tweezers and carefully select a hundred pristine trichomes? And "THC percentage" isn't everything except THC, plus the THC? A rich Nigerian prince told me it was so during an email argument about it. Let me PM you his address. Surely the delta-9 THC% also includes the terpenes, nothing else would make sense.

Fertilizers in the USA do use an odd antique percentage calculation, and alcohol for drinking is measured as volume percentage, but I'm fairly certain that the "80% lean" hamburger in my freezer does not refer to the non-triglyceride content of the muscle cells.

I have a feeling that hi-test submitted floral material is not very leafy/wet, and does not always represent the whole buds actually sold.

 

[LIFEISGOOD]

Water into wine

Water into wine

Jesus couldn't get potent weed out of genetics that won't allow it. [/quote]


Come on! If Jesus can turn water into wine he could surely turn schwag into kind.

 

[Moonshine*]

There was a cannabis cup a few months back that had all the entries "tested" by one of the local thc testing facilities. Out of the 30+ entries the one that won "most potent" by a huge vote was 17%. There were 5 that were above it and 2 that went over 20%.

Im first and foremost to agree calling BS on testing. THC % dont matter, its overall effect and body chemistry, plain and simple.

One of the local testing facilities tests my stuff for free and Ive given them 2 nuglets from the same bud and labled the samples 2 different strains. When the tests came back the results were 7% different.


Hmmmmm. Strange.

With that they have tested about 20 diff things for me and Ive had "Ghost's Og" come back @ 21.7% and ECSD come back 19.9% most other stuff is in the 15-18% range, if ya want to believe.

Im a skeptic...

 

[G.O. Joe]

Modern analysis is done on a very small scale and I'd be surprised if any lab extracts more than a 200 mg sample. 50 mg is enough (extracted with only a ml or two of solvent), so if you give them a gram of material, they will choose which 50 mg of that gram to extract. You'd expect different 50 mg portions, of that same gram even, to give variations. I know if I was running a lab whose entire income came from growers, I'd be using the most crystalline bit there. The whole gram could be homogenized to give an accurate representation, but I don't see any advantage in not giving the highest number possible.

In chemistry (and elsewhere), percentage is always by weight unless stated otherwise.

 

[stickey fingers]

i would like to see the test of THC and CBD, done to strains like NEVIELS HAZE, A DJ SHORT BLUEBERRY, and pure romulan to reflect the deveristy of cannabis and science

SPECIAL THANKS GRAPEVINE SEEDS,OJD,REZ,GOOD KARAMA COLLECTIVE
RIP DR JAY

 

[Dorje113]

What you mean they don't sit down with a microscope and tweezers and carefully select a hundred pristine trichomes?

In the testing I've seen, the sample is heated and the resulting gas is what is analyzed.

As far as whether the % is of the entire sample by weight, it doesn't seem possible. A solvent extraction of THC, even if you assume it is inefficient at 50%, would yield about 91 grams of 50% THC hash oil from 20% THC weed. That's really conservative because solvent extractions are often over 90% efficient. I've seen some weed test near 30%, which would mean there's 136.2 grams of PURE THC in a lb? Put the bong down for longer than 5 minutes if you think that's anywhere near reasonable.

 

[Moonshine*]

In the testing I've seen, the sample is heated and the resulting gas is what is analyzed.

.

Im doing that sort of testing right now. Its called a Bong hit.....

I test multiple times a day.....

 

[Baba Ku]

Proper testing and calibration is not cheap. If a lab is doing sample pro bono, I would be very suspect in their methods. Even reputable labs that used trained and certified testers have big time problems keeping everything calibrated properly.
Ask for papers at the next test facility you encounter. I bet you get none.
And if you are not dealing with certifications, then you are doing nothing but tossing off, really. It's a game that more and more are taking advantage of.
And without certified testing equipment, procedures, and personnel the lab reports are nothing at all but a marketing ploy. Nothing more, nothing less.

You people trying to make logical conclusions about how things are in the testing world, study some of this shit and stop speculating. Your simple mind is limiting your understanding of things. These things have already been figured out for you if you just read a little bit. You don't have to speculate and use you experience with washing for extract as a guide, just simply read about how things really are.

 

[mriko]

My oh my... obviously there still are lots of people who don't know what they are smoking...

a 20% weed does NOT contain 20% of thc by volume (wtf???) or total weight of the sample, that's just impossible.

the extraction ratio for resin is between 10% & 15% of total bud weight. Means that for 100gr of buds you'll get 10gr to 15gr of resin. If from a 20% THC mj, that will make only 2 to 3gr of thc FOR 100gr OF BUDS.

There are two ways of measuring THC %. One is by DRY WEIGHT of total plant material and it's generally more or less 5% (well, a 5% weed is strong one). The other way is by measuring the THC ratio among all other cannabinoids, and that is when those 20-something % appear. There is simply NO WAY that a sample of MJ can contains 20% of THC by dry weight ("by volume" doesn't means anything, at all, period).
It's simple mathematics (and I was an ass in math at school...).

By the way, not all THC is in the resin gland, but also in flowers, leaves & twigs.

Irie !

 

[D.S. Toker. MD]

After stripping off my outdoor sensi star crop, i had a pile of buds in the floor that weiged about 10 lbs .... and anybody thats foolish enough to think there was 2lbs of resin to be extracted from the pile is drunk! In fact, i would bet good money that you couldnt get 1lb of hash from the pile- its hard to get an ounce of glands from a lb of smoke..

Im not sure how its figured, but clearly its not figured in relation to total weight. Plus, ive grown strains that reported 20+% that didnt have even remotely the kick of another strain that might be registered at 14. Its hard for me to assign much relevance to the number.

 

[Highlight]

Deleted

 

[Dr_Tre]

It's the percentage of THC against all cannabinoids.
You guys really believe that a fifth of a bud's weight is pure THC!?LOL.Then if you add the other 70+ cannabinoids to the equation you'd probably get that 80% of the bud's weight is cannabinoids?lol

 

[Moonshine*]

Proper testing and calibration is not cheap. If a lab is doing sample pro bono, I would be very suspect in their methods.
.

Full Spectrum Labs is the supposed largest testing company in the country and the "most respected" one in our state. Tests are normally 75-120 for the public. Mine are tested for free because of the quality of the grow and uniqueness of the strains. Im not saying the tests are correct. Id be suspect in the methods even if they werent free.

When I looked into all the testing methods like 10-12 yrs ago the main issue with testing here in the US was no one could accurately calibrate their machines without a calibration sample provided by the FDA. Is this still the case?

I get a call Monthly from lab asking if I want to have anything tested. Sometimes people do Pro Bono work for those who deserve it.

MSM

 

[Dorje113]

Your simple mind is limiting your understanding of things.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Just keep on going, might as well dig your hole deeper. Jackoff... I was trying to be NICE so you wouldn't look like an IDIOT. Too Late...

 

[Baba Ku]

Do sod off, Dorje. Sheesh.

I wasn't trying to demean your relationship with the lab, moon, and sure a reputable group could easily provide some work in exchange for exposure. Sorry if that came off a bit brash. My point was really in the grain of salt that one must always keep close when dealing with labs. You obviously got that part, and apparently agree.

 

[G.O. Joe]

On extraction efficiency: analysts don't use butane or qwiso. They usually sonicate in 9:1 methanol/chloroform, because that has repeatedly been found to work best for extracting cannabinoids.

Take this test to self-determine the shit level in your brain:

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/12297/1/Thesis.pdf
http://www.ut.ee/ams/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Gert_Suurkuusk_Thesis_2010.pdf
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/Bulletin07/Bulletin_on_narcotics_2007_Stambouli.pdf
http://home.olemiss.edu/~suman/potancy paper 2010.pdf
http://www.ukcia.org/research/IncreaseInTHCInCoffeeshops.pdf - "Although certain varieties stand out, the variation in THC percentage within the different varieties is much higher than that between the varieties (unpublished results). It is not possible to predict the potency of a certain variety simply on the basis of a name."