[420247]

Great info Hortilab! Thank you for posting the info

Originally Posted by Green Supreme

Heard a dude took samples, to many of the known Cali labs, of the same weed. They got different results from all of them and Steephill was one of them. Seems standards are hard to acquire in the US. Most are just faking their way through it, making a mockery of this all. Peace GS

Huh... I was thinking the same thing when all that nasty BC crap weed came flowing down here from Canada lol

I have an odd question... If I took a small fluff bud from the bottom of the plant that got very little light and the top bud of the same plant that got alot of light, would the two test the same? exactly the same?

If so why?

If not why?

[Green Supreme]

I would say maturity of the bud would affect the test. Other factors too, like trimmed or not.

By the way BC beasters are generally weed designed for the bag appeal losers in the US. They dictate light green, no red hairs and super frosty. Funny potency is not part of the picture lol. Peace GS

[420247]

Originally Posted by Green Supreme

I would say maturity of the bud would affect the test. Other factors too, like trimmed or not.

I have always heard light has an effect on THC... Would you disagree?

Would every bud from 1 plant test the same? And if not, how different can 1 bud test from another bud on the same plant?

I have no idea about all this stuff but it interests me

[Green Supreme]

If we are to start to believe these tests I will point out a necessary ingredient. The numbers, I mean c'mon only a small portion or the cannabis trichome is active ingredients. How can that small amount be 20% of anything{and what is it a percentage of}or even 50% or 90%.

One of the hugest problems in all this will be standardization. I mean, we cannot even decided amongst ourselves on a common test method, let alone get standards to compare too.

Long way to go before these numbers will really mean anything. Peace GS

[420247]

Originally Posted by Green Supreme

If we are to start to believe these tests I will point out a necessary ingredient. The numbers, I mean c'mon only a small portion or the cannabis trichome is active ingredients. How can that small amount be 20% of anything{and what is it a percentage of}or even 50% or 90%.

Thats an interesting point But I have had very strong cannabis with few trichomes and have seen wild hemp with alot of trichomes but wont get you high... Looking at trichomes would not be the best method of figuring anything out in my opinion (other than havest time and hash making)

[Green Supreme]

Very true, if you search my posts you will see I do not believe good weed looks a certain way. Have been totally rocked by the most scwagally lookin nugs.

I do see these type of test useful, in the same way I see flowering times usefully, from seed companies{They are useful to get an idea of faster and slower strains amongst that seed co. Not actual flower times}. What it may tell you is a relative potency within that seed companies strains. The strains will have all been tested in the same way, in the same lab by likely the same tester. The actual numbers though I find useless otherwise. Peace GS

[420247]

Originally Posted by Green Supreme

I do see these type of test useful, in the same way I see flowering times usefully, from seed companies{They are useful to get an idea of faster and slower strains amongst that seed co. Not actual flower times}. What it may tell you is a relative potency within that seed companies strains. The strains will have all been tested in the same way, in the same lab by likely the same tester. The actual numbers though I find useless otherwise. Peace GS

Thats a good way of looking at it Good info

[plastochron]

not to shamelessly self-promote, but i would love to see these strains profiled by a lab that can ID more than a handful of cannabinoids

plastochron what lab do you work for?

[plastochron]

...