Why is THC % in weed is still misrepresented ?

HELLO
so i have had so many conversations about this I thought i wound post about it just to see how wide spread this misconception is .
-So during testing procedure for HPLC the sample ( eg 100g ) is centrifuged for 4 hour with tech grade methanol . The resulting mix is filtered to 1 micron for sampling in the high pressure liquid chromatography unit .
WHEN THE THC % IS GIVEN IT IS ON THE EXTRACTED SAMPLE NOT THE ORIGINAL WEED WEIGHT.
Average oil extracted is 15% of weed weight ( 10% to 20% )
So the 20% THC rating ( thca + thc) is based on that 15% oil not the original weed sample.
the math is:
100 gram weed rated at 20% thc has 15% avg oil extraction at a thc % of 20% .
100g x 15% x 20% = 3 gram in a 100 g weed which makes it 3% thc NOT 20%
this is simply 4he testing procedure .
if weed was really 20% thc then the trichome would have to be 100% thc .
if you extracted the trichomes of avg weed you would be lucky to get 15% trichomes back and you can't have more thc than the gland that makes it .
AMD if you separated it, the resulting resin would have to be 100% thc and be completely free of terpenes and other compounds.
this is a quote from a testing procedure :

Below the HPLC chromatograph are two charts that highlight the cannabinoid potencies of your product. The first chart identifies cannabinoid concentrations (Fig. 3). As you can see, the delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level is 24.64 per cent (the product sample analyzed in this example is a cannabinoid extract, so the concentrations are much higher than what would occur in dried flowers).

I will post sample prep procedures in pics

Click to expand...

the 20% THC and the oil content of 15% are averages. You can vary the percentages up or down but the mass THC rate could not increase beyond 5% tops.
100 gram at 25% resin at 30% thc still is only 7. 5 g THC in 100 gram sample or 7.5% thc

Testing is more of an informative measure than a quantitative measure for me. You can see the ratios of cannabinoids, but yeah dunno who belives you can get 25-30% thc by weight weed bud. If that was true you would smoke a joint and be as high as you were from smoking hash or doing dabs.

I agree

I agree

exploziv said:

Testing is more of an informative measure than a quantitative measure for me. You can see the ratios of cannabinoids, but yeah dunno who belives you can get 25-30% thc by weight weed bud. If that was true you would smoke a joint and be as high as you were from smoking hash or doing dabs.

Click to expand...

well ....
I have been banned from 8 top marijuana forums for posting the sampling procedures.
over 1400 hate /abusive texts
4 death threats
and a guys address in BC to fly out to fight him ..
so apperantly a f***ing lot of people believe this lol

this would make sense cause often you smoke (suposed high thc)
and it seems weak.

so you think most strains are actually 5-7% THC like back in the day?

i didnt know they tested by turning to oil then testing that.
depends on the test i spose.

double post.

yes

yes

mack 10 said:

this would make sense cause often you smoke (suposed high thc)
and it seems weak.

so you think most strains are actually 5-7% THC like back in the day?

i didnt know they tested by turning to oil then testing that.
depends on the test i spose.

Click to expand...

no , the average is 2 to 3 % I used 5 to 7 % as an unrealistic max
yes that is another thing . plants are not much shervin thc levels .
what we have today is a better growing knowledge and local production.
hash was NEVER bad . temple ball and aphghani have always been good. there never was a dramatic increase in hash quantity or thc levels. the same kush you smoke today is extremely close to the original land race varityy .
Tobacco companies only managed to increase nicotine by 40% since 1940 with hundreds of millions in research

back in the day

back in the day

mack 10 said:

this would make sense cause often you smoke (suposed high thc)
and it seems weak.

so you think most strains are actually 5-7% THC like back in the day?

i didnt know they tested by turning to oil then testing that.
depends on the test i spose.

Click to expand...

the test does not matter.
math is math . % is % . we either talk about mass or not.
I think more likely back in the day they actually did the math correctly and accounted for the mass of the bud in the test.
there' is a big difference in weed not genetically aboe to produce 20% the resin and the ability to actually grow it to its genetic potential

I personally could not care less about these tests and the results on offer in this industry. Im speaking for myself as an individual, but im sure they have some utility in the industry. All i care about is how a given cultivar makes me feel.
Having said that, i have on multiple occasions pressed rosin from flower and made alcohol tinctures, rso for edibles. I have many times gotten 25-28%return on rosin or rso from the flower. So from my limited understanding there would be a little less than 25-28%total cannabinoids in the rso or rosin and typically in thc dominant cultivar the cannabinoid profile will be dominated by Thc. I have no doubt many of us have come across plants that ooze large amounts of resin from trichome coated flower only to find it to be underwhelming in effect, especially compared to a cultivar that clearly has less overall total cannabinoids and less thc.
I do believe there is a lot bs and hype around testing. This is a nascent industry in many ways and is still finding its footing. So why is thc misrepresented as you ask?Grifters gotta grift.

nohnsmith1010 said:

well ....
I have been banned from 8 top marijuana forums for posting the sampling procedures.
over 1400 hate /abusive texts
4 death threats
and a guys address in BC to fly out to fight him ..
so apperantly a f***ing lot of people believe this lol

Click to expand...

Where? I broken up a pack of "Strawberry Bananna" that I thought might be 20%, cause it was that crystally. Like breaking up peanut brittle for all the busted heads.

robotwithdreams said:

I personally could not care less about these tests and the results on offer in this industry. Im speaking for myself as an individual, but im sure they have some utility in the industry. All i care about is how a given cultivar makes me feel.
Having said that, i have on multiple occasions pressed rosin from flower and made alcohol tinctures, rso for edibles. I have many times gotten 25-28%return on rosin or rso from the flower. So from my limited understanding there would be a little less than 25-28%total cannabinoids in the rso or rosin and typically in thc dominant cultivar the cannabinoid profile will be dominated by Thc. I have no doubt many of us have come across plants that ooze large amounts of resin from trichome coated flower only to find it to be underwhelming in effect, especially compared to a cultivar that clearly has less overall total cannabinoids and less thc.
I do believe there is a lot bs and hype around testing. This is a nascent industry in many ways and is still finding its footing. So why is thc misrepresented as you ask?Grifters gotta grift.

Click to expand...

the resin or rosin is also full of terpenes , calcium carbonate , plant tissue etc .so no 28% rosin ( which is exceptionally high) is the 20% thc 80% terpenes +
so 28 % x 20% is around 5.6% thc .
100 g weed st 20% thc rating. the 20 of the 28 g rosin . = 5.6 g thc/100g weed or 5.6 %
math is not politics. its just numbers . the same way we want clarity in every other part if our lives such as alcohol percent of drinks , we expect the same scientifically accurate description. this is also why we put calories on menus at fast food outlets . it's to inform and be informed.
it is not political to bring attention to the misinterpretation if a standard HPLC test any more than to explain to an American that if I give him 1 kg metric of weed that in fact equals 2.2 lb imperial .
buying weed with an incorrect mg/g of thc is the same. just basic math and science

all

all

flylowgethigh said:

Where? I broken up a pack of "Strawberry Bananna" that I thought might be 20%, cause it was that crystally. Like breaking up peanut brittle for all the busted heads.

Click to expand...

you name one and I will tell you yes or know . the most common 8 all banned me

now the weed with 20% crystal you mentioned ?
the resin is 80% terpenes , waxes, calcium carbonate, plant tissue etc . so that 20 % resin is itself 20% thc making the bud sbout 4 % thc .

Thankyou, I've been asking about these numbers for years, and not one person has been able to explain it. Now it makes sense.
Very welcome to IC.

nohnsmith1010 said:

no , the average is 2 to 3 % I used 5 to 7 % as an unrealistic max
yes that is another thing . plants are not much shervin thc levels .
what we have today is a better growing knowledge and local production.
hash was NEVER bad . temple ball and aphghani have always been good. there never was a dramatic increase in hash quantity or thc levels. the same kush you smoke today is extremely close to the original land race varityy .
Tobacco companies only managed to increase nicotine by 40% since 1940 with hundreds of millions in research

Click to expand...

So what you are saying about thc amounts makes sense and seems to be in the right ballpark. But I have no experties to challenge those numbers.
But you just piped in some blatantly false information about tobacco. From my very limited tobacco growing experience compared to my weed growing experience I can tell you that is patently false. There are many types of tobacco with too high of nicotine levels to smoke straight. They will make you sick. They are to be mixed with milder tobacco as well as used as an insecticide.
Most tobacco people smoke in cigarettes are quite mild varieties. It is not about max nicotine amounts.
So I am not sure what your agenda is here. Like I said your original post makes sense, but then you lose credibility with what I can verify as false information.

nohnsmith1010 said:

the resin or rosin is also full of terpenes , calcium carbonate , plant tissue etc .so no 28% rosin ( which is exceptionally high) is the 20% thc 80% terpenes +
so 28 % x 20% is around 5.6% thc .
100 g weed st 20% thc rating. the 20 of the 28 g rosin . = 5.6 g thc/100g weed or 5.6 %
math is not politics. its just numbers . the same way we want clarity in every other part if our lives such as alcohol percent of drinks , we expect the same scientifically accurate description. this is also why we put calories on menus at fast food outlets . it's to inform and be informed.
it is not political to bring attention to the misinterpretation if a standard HPLC test any more than to explain to an American that if I give him 1 kg metric of weed that in fact equals 2.2 lb imperial .
buying weed with an incorrect mg/g of thc is the same. just basic math and science

Click to expand...

I already mentioned i have no dog in this race. So its not politics to me. Obviously the rosin or rso or an extract has cannbinoids, terpenes, waxes, lipids, etc..
Im sorry but i cant take this seriously, you are claiming the extract is 80%terpenes 20% thc? So lets clarify a bit. I take a a very frosty 100 grams of flower and extract rosin and get 25 grams. According to you 80% of that 25 grams of rosin is terpenes? Is that what you are saying or perhaps 80% is all the non cannabinoid constituents? Either way that really doesnt make sense.

Extracts are closer to 40-50%. The bans I believe. The THC in the extract represents the THC in the sample, which is always weighed for some reason. The reason why huge amounts of THC don't get you any higher is because it's insoluble in blood, and if the lungs can oversaturate blood with THC, it soon precipitates out somewhere it shouldn't.

Great outdoors said:

So what you are saying about thc amounts makes sense and seems to be in the right ballpark. But I have no experties to challenge those numbers.
But you just piped in some blatantly false information about tobacco. From my very limited tobacco growing experience compared to my weed growing experience I can tell you that is patently false. There are many types of tobacco with too high of nicotine levels to smoke straight. They will make you sick. They are to be mixed with milder tobacco as well as used as an insecticide.
Most tobacco people smoke in cigarettes are quite mild varieties. It is not about max nicotine amounts.
So I am not sure what your agenda is here. Like I said your original post makes sense, but then you lose credibility with what I can verify as false information.

Click to expand...

so it is actually higher than 40 % good thing I checked again. it has been some time since I did my last comparative research. here is a quote from wiki page .
In the 1970s, Brown & Williamson cross-bred a strain of tobacco to produce Y1, a strain containing an unusually high nicotine content, nearly doubling from 3.2-3.5% to 6.5%. In the 1990s, this prompted the Food and Drug Administration to allege that tobacco companies were intentionally manipulating the nicotine content of cigarettes.
here is the article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco
this is an easy source with references .
now as far as the weed
I WILL PAY FOR ANY ONE WHO WANTS A FREE THC TEST ON A HPLC AT MY OWN EXPENSE.
I have offered this on many sites .
you send the sample to a mutually agreed hplc chromatography lab ( there are lots . I am in Toronto and have 5 to choose form )
we then ask lab tech very specific questions and both post results.
I have been growing ( and distilling) 30 years. I have had so.many Tests done I was surprised it was as big as a misconception as it is .

nohnsmith1010 said:

so it is actually higher than 40 % good thing I checked again. it has been some time since I did my last comparative research. here is a quote from wiki page .
In the 1970s, Brown & Williamson cross-bred a strain of tobacco to produce Y1, a strain containing an unusually high nicotine content, nearly doubling from 3.2-3.5% to 6.5%. In the 1990s, this prompted the Food and Drug Administration to allege that tobacco companies were intentionally manipulating the nicotine content of cigarettes.
here is the article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco
this is an easy source with references .
now as far as the weed
I WILL PAY FOR ANY ONE WHO WANTS A FREE THC TEST ON A HPLC AT MY OWN EXPENSE.
I have offered this on many sites .
you send the sample to a mutually agreed hplc chromatography lab ( there are lots . I am in Toronto and have 5 to choose form )
we then ask lab tech very specific questions and both post results.
I have been growing ( and distilling) 30 years. I have had so.many Tests done I was surprised it was as big as a misconception as it is .

Click to expand...

the point I was making was if the multi billion dollar tobacco industry could only increase to 5 or 6 % how could a bunch of unregulated pot enthusiasts. ?
notice the nicotine levels are similiar to the thc . this is also got to do with osmotic pressure in cells you can not simply add 20 or 30 % more of a substance to a biological organism or cell and expect the osmotic translocation of water not to he affected.
increases in nature are normally +/-5 to 15 % not 50 % or double. this case they used genetically manipulated Gene's to double nicotine levels and tou are right , they probably are not the ones used en masse. like any intoxicant higher % does not mean better product.

nohnsmith1010 said:

so it is actually higher than 40 % good thing I checked again. it has been some time since I did my last comparative research. here is a quote from wiki page .
In the 1970s, Brown & Williamson cross-bred a strain of tobacco to produce Y1, a strain containing an unusually high nicotine content, nearly doubling from 3.2-3.5% to 6.5%. In the 1990s, this prompted the Food and Drug Administration to allege that tobacco companies were intentionally manipulating the nicotine content of cigarettes.
here is the article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco
this is an easy source with references .
now as far as the weed
I WILL PAY FOR ANY ONE WHO WANTS A FREE THC TEST ON A HPLC AT MY OWN EXPENSE.
I have offered this on many sites .
you send the sample to a mutually agreed hplc chromatography lab ( there are lots . I am in Toronto and have 5 to choose form )
we then ask lab tech very specific questions and both post results.
I have been growing ( and distilling) 30 years. I have had so.many Tests done I was surprised it was as big as a misconception as it is .

Click to expand...

Well like I said with weed I had no reason to doubt your claim. It's pretty obvious that 20- 25 percent thc by volume of weed is a farce. Maybe 20-25 percent of the trichome weight.
I don't take much stock in claimed thc amounts anyways. Quality to me is judged by smell, looks, taste and high. Not a big fan of all the Kush crosses flooding the market these days.

I still don't understand why you would throw in the tobacco claim. They have known of the strong varieties for eons. From the times when tobacco was first smoked. High nicotine is not a desired feature.
Just as IMO high thc should not be the definer of high quality weed.

tabacco

tabacco

Great outdoors said:

Well like I said with weed I had no reason to doubt your claim. It's pretty obvious that 20- 25 percent thc by volume of weed is a farce. Maybe 20-25 percent of the trichome weight.
I don't take much stock in claimed thc amounts anyways. Quality to me is judged by smell, looks, taste and high. Not a big fan of all the Kush crosses flooding the market these days.

I still don't understand why you would throw in the tobacco claim. They have known of the strong varieties for eons. From the times when tobacco was first smoked. High nicotine is not a desired feature.
Just as IMO high thc should not be the definer of high quality weed.

Click to expand...

tabacco is a similiar crop in the fact it is cultivated for a compound that grows on it or in it . The marijuanna bus has always copied the tabacco bus . not sure how old you are but in the 1970's in canada pierre Elliott Trudeau ( Justin's father ) was going to legalize weed. rothmans and several other companies already had packaging made up( very rare and collectable if you can find them ) our big tobacco region in Ontario is tillsonberg ( famous stompin Tom conners song about working in tillsonberg) several big tobacco companies had their drying sheds converted and were ready to grow but it never passed in parliament. the companies that grow now rely on tried and true standard cultivation techniques similar to tobacco as well as tomatoes and to some extent corn . heavy feeding, heaving fruiting crops with a set flower and harvest point. the nutritional needs will all be extremely similiar.
I could not recomend highly enough , reading the trifecta of hydroponic cultivation. These are the holy trinity of books .
HYDROPONIC FOOD PRODUCTION by dr HOWARD M RESH ( written 1984 1st edition. most so called new inventions such as rotating drums and vertical columns with drip feed . . everything..1984 ans still updated yearly . nutrient solutions explained in great detail. have made my own for 30 years for LESS than 10% of store cost )
ROCKWOOL IN HORTICULTURE by Dennis Smith ( rockwool is the medium but the control and operation of the systems are the same. the only difference with rockwool i running a slightly lower ph. extremely detailed feed regiments feed , slab and runoff monitoring..most nutrient deficiencies are caused by lockup because of inadequate over watering)
ABC's of NFT by dr allan cooper ( 1977 .commercial lettuce and tomatoe production. basic bare bones, minimalist operation of commercial crops back when there was no place to buy anything. if you needed it you made it .the basics at it s best )
read these three and you know 95% of what to know about hydroponic cultivation. no guessing, no more spending money on the 90% of unnecessary products being offered by today's stores .