[chak-ra]

Dear friends,


This year, all indica and sativa entries to the ICmag 420 cup were analyzed by TestLab Amsterdam.
They did a cannabinoid analysis, TLC with pixel quantification software.
Cannabinoids tested for were: THC, THCV, CBN, CBD, CBG and CBC.




Without any further delay I hereby present to you the results:

INDICA

Sample 1-10:



Sample 11-13:




SATIVA

Sample 30-39:



Sample 40-42:





Next year, lets try to have the entries tested for terpenes, pesticides, heavy metals and contaminants. All this are steps to give all of us more insight into our beloved plant.

Any questions concerning testing, you can always contact Testlab. (their contact info in on the test sheet or on their website)

[Moppel]

awesome!

[miaumiau]

GREAT!

[StoneyK]

What sample belongs to what strain??? Or am I missing something?

[growsjoe1]

Originally Posted by StoneyK

What sample belongs to what strain??? Or am I missing something?

Secret # = sample #

Secret # for the winning entries can be found here:

https://www.icmag.com/modules/420Cup...cannabistotals

[Chimera]

With all due respect to the effort that went into arranging the tests etc, these results are absolutely and completely bogus.

TLC or thin layer chromatography is absolutely not quantitative; meaning you can't put numbers to the results, let alone accurate or meaningful ones. "Pixel quantification software", is nothing more than counting dots on a screen by a computer; any perceived difference between the spot sizes on the TLC plates is likely due to sample loading error, weighing inaccuracies or matrix effects of the extraction.

TLC is very imprecise, to the point that first year chemistry students are taught that it should only be used for qualitative purposes, or screening for the presence or absence of compounds. That 'TestLabs Amsterdam' even tries to suggest any quantitative results are possible from the methodology is troubling.

The degree of error for this type of test is huge; the variation between the samples is much more likely to be due to sample preparation errors than an actual difference in the samples. The most information that could really be drawn from this set of results is that 'all of the plants entered were chemotype I, or THC predominant'.

Otherwise, these results are really meaningless, and that is coming from someone who has screened hundreds of individuals and thousands of samples with both HPLC and GC. Sorry to be a downer on the parade, however you guys should know the truth about the results before you start hearing people running around claiming any validity to these results.

Respectfully,
-Chimera

[Chimera]

After looking at the prices on the TestLabs Amsterdam webpage, I can only say the only thing more troubling than their results is their pricing! I assume that they offered the service to the IC cup for free in return for the exposure, which should really have been disclosed if it were the case.

For those prices, one would expect a fully validated HPLC test for cannabs and a terpene assay by GC. Seems like some entrepreneur trying to make hefty profit from a the new regulations from the dutch government, but TLC tests for 180 euros per sample, that's simply outrageous. If you'll forgive the slang, there are much better ways to get screwed for your dollar in AMS.....

-Chimera

[chak-ra]

Thanks for the small notes Chimera!

Prices for IC were 4.20 euro's per tested entry.

These analysis are just step 1 in finding a proper and cost effective way to have everything tested for the IC420 cups. (have to start somewhere, right?)

Best use of TLC analysis would of course be HPTLC.
Testlab is working on that.

Chimera, maybe you have a good contact or tip for testing the samples for the IC420 2015?

[Sam_Skunkman]

I agree with much that Chimera said, when I looked at the numbers they did not look like any numbers that I have found in testing Cups samples. TLC is almost useless for quantification, I have seen it over and over give results that were not correct. GC/MS or HPLC/MS has been the way for years to get reproducible accurate Cannabinoid results. TLA says they are migrating to HPTLC which I have never used, but everything I have read about it says it is as dependable as GC/MS or HPLC/MS.
Chimera have you used HPTLC or seen it in action? Or heard of it? It also does terpenes.
The only good thing was the price was nothing, the results prove you get what you pay for.
Every sample had some CBD, THC, THCV, CBG, CBC, and most CBN? I seldom find CBN in fresh dry buds.
I seldom find 25 samples with CBD, THCV, CBG, CBC, CBN, besides THC.
Before we use TLA again they need to prove that they can deliver accurate results that are compared to A GC/MS like CANNA uses for their testing. If they get a HPTLC we could try that, otherwise we need to find another testing service that can show they are dependable and accurate and reproducible.
Chimera, FYI, I had nothing to do with the testing other then saying I thought that testing was a good idea, but not with GLC.
-SamS

[gaiusmarius]

the whole testing thing is a new step for rhis cup, we will work on this, maybe you 2 with the experience could point us in the right direction. on the other hand if we have to pay 200 euro per sample our cup passes will quickly be as bad as the htcc ones, so we need a lab that wants to be involved for the exposure or as a favor, who will give us a good deal. so anyone with any suggestions please bring them on.