[rarelylucid]

* with little transparency of practices.

[xxxstr8edgexxx]

whatever.

you can do anything your brain has the capacity to learn.

i have a seventh grade education.

some projects im working on or have worked on that people said "you cant do that" about.
i used to run a still.
im reverse engineering and making my own cannabis nutes.
im doing tissue culture in a homemade laminar flow hood.
im currentlylearning about making my own lab equipment to run pcr tests in my space. in other words amplifying dna with primers to identify pathogens and pests by isolating and identifying their dna. its called a thermal cycler. i got sick of dealing with skittish and uptight labs for pathogen testing.

im also writing protocols for microtip tissue culture cell cluster cloning to rid cannabis clone only varietals of various pests based on journals about doing it with other plants. its a technique that requires extracting cells under a disecting microscope and cloning them. without going into it all its a way to clear some viruses and other pathogens.

i cant write proper paragraphs or spell. im a middleschool drop out from ky.
google is a really prestigious university if you know how to use it.
little hint, these threads are not a staring point for these queries. google that shit bro. there are weekend seminars where one can get certified on these testing techniques. as for how legit that is, well i think it depends on how competent and thirsty for knowledge the person taking the course is.

google the tests required, how they work, what certification and equipment is needed or how to learn it if you arent dependent on the paperwork. thats if youre doing it for your own info.

good luck.

[xxxstr8edgexxx]

oh and when all else fails recruit grad students. thats what i do. hahaha. alot of them like weed.

[rarelylucid]

Haha Well put, I agree completely self education is another option and incredibly useful it's just more difficult to quantify the weight of the knowledge without a standard. As we know the masses need to have a way to measure or categorize everything and everyone for that matter. I was on a plane once with a south african guy , we were discussing how in his field one can get a degree and instantly have a job then gain useful experience and become successful conversely he happened to get a job that taught him what he needed to know in order to be successful but he still felt he needed a degree so as to show the customers he was competent and on par with others in the field.

[rarelylucid]

Originally Posted by SirStynkalot

Probably shouldn't rez the dead...

You can probably slide in without having the proper training or experience but you're not going to be able to offer reliable services. You'll just be throwing money down the drain as soon as these places start getting regulated. Doing chemical analysis testing without a PhD is a REALLY, REALLY BAD IDEA. You can't just substitute marketing for knowing how to do the job properly, regardless of what the rest of this industry seems to think.

As an aside there are people who have been doing just that in my area and it has destroyed the reputations of the dispensaries that bought their services. You don't want to buy weed from someone whose test results are based on the number of tests they order. A guy I know did a double blind test selling weed to two different dispensaries that both were tested by the same company. One listed his product at like 18% THC, the other at 13%. That's fucking clown shoes. People pay so much for quality assurance because it's important and difficult enough to be worth outsourcing.

Also, don't order testing from Analytical360 on the eastern side of WA. None of the quality, none of the assurance, and until a few months ago they didn't even have a decent machine. Don't know how they've stayed in business for years.

hey rereading your post, the difference of 13% to 18% could have been in the sample taken from the plant, there's a pretty large swing depending on the actual bud that is sampled. just saying

[SirStynkalot]

Oh I'm well aware Lucid but people always get top colas tested. You want the best number you can get to put on your store shelves. There's no justifying that kind of swing in a double blind test.

[rarelylucid]

i'm not trying to argue i've just been reading alot of the house of lords double blinds lately and feel i should mention, they do always get top colas tested but not all staff members of all dispensaries prep there samples the same way, also statically you need a mean to make any judgments, I'm only saying because by definition that is what double blind clinical trials are , exact replication of practices to show statistical evidence that then allows for a hypothesis

[TracerChris]

Top colas, are great for high Thc values but those are only important in a numbers game. For one plant to vary 5% is not unheard of but more than that would be unusual. An accurate representation should require multiple samples are tested from the same lot. (the more the better). And then Precision comes form having great equipment and people who are capable. Together the real numbers can be understood to be something more like a range say lot 1111 1111 1111 1111 has a range of THC from 15-18% with CBD from 3-5% etc. Labeling this way makes a lot more sense to me as a consumer. It removes the illusion that a plant could possibly be 41% https://www.*********.com/community/...a-state.72099/ Although in this case its because anatek was using a methodology that is no longer acceaptable by the wslcb.

[SirStynkalot]

So THAAAT's why everyone was using Anatek...

[TracerChris]

Exactly! This is something I've found that is pretty interesting. https://www.cannabistransparency.org/labs/

When it gets updated, I doubt that a 41% bud will come up again after about mid May of this year. Which is when the WSLCB made that announcement that samples had to be tested exactly as they come in. The methodology anatek was using was inconsistent with usage. Meaning that they would take a flower sample, dry it in an oven, and then would test that for potency. This radically inflates the percentage reported back.