LAB Results Entries IC420 cup 2014

[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]

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/420Cup2014/index.php?opt=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.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I just talked to CANNA about their GC Cannabinoid testing, they do not do it in the Netherlands anymore. The government here in Holland is to uptight. They do it it Spain.
We may not have a choice, besides TestLabsAmsterdam, but unless they use something besides TLC, I would pass.
Anyone else know of a Cannabinoid testing service in the Netherlands?
-SamS

 

[VonBudí]

@sam and chimera

are these home testing kits any good/reputable?

AlphaCAT is a Cannabinoid Analytical Tool which combines the simple analytical technique of thin-layer chromatography (TLC) with specific thin-layers and developing fluid.

http://www.alpha-cat.org/

mitch talks about them here

Hey guys,

We recently submitted our new strains for analysis. It was during Spannabis and we met a very helpful company called alpha-cat, if you would like to know more information please see their website. http://www.alpha-cat.org/

They do a very easy home testing kit, which we will be trying out soon. However the guys themselves did all the testing for us. They ran a competition and held a cup over the Spannabis weekend, where people, private or seedbanks were invited to have their gear tested.
We neglected to be entered into the cup, as although we had high hopes for the new strains, we were anxious. (we should have been braver)

Needless to say these are good, very professional people and should testing be something your interested in, don't hesistate to get in touch with them.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Alpha-Cat is TLC, useless to me.
See TLC vs GC:
http://www.fundacion-canna.es/comparative-study-for-quantification-thc
15-48% different results.
Same as Cannalytics.
-SamS

 

[Chimera]

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

That is much better than the prices quoted on their website; 50 euros for a certificate

B – BASIC ANALYSES
Without a certificate, showing only the quantitative ratios of the primary cannabinoids.
100 euro (per sample).

C – ADVANCED ANALYSES
With a certificate, showing the quantitative ratios of the primary cannabinoids and the print-effect relationships.
150 euro (per sample).

D – PREMIUM ANALYSES
A full analysis report showing the following: Quantitative ratios of primary cannabinoids.
Botany, physical and phytochemical properties. Profile-effect and dose-effect relationships.
Pharmacological action. Therapeutic uses and pharmaceutical file.
180 euro (per sample).

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?)

Do we have to start from somewhere? I am not sure what these results added to the cup, and I don't see how the THC content of the varieties are of any value to people judging by organoleptic means. See below

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

Best use of TLC is for differentiating different cannabinoid chemotypes, Chemotype I, II, II etc and refining populations for further screening. It is not a useful technique for quantification.

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

As long as the 420 cup in is NL, Farmalyse is the best option but I don't know if they will do recreational cannabis; they do perform the tests in NL for the Bureau of Medicinal Cannabis, and however are certainly using a validated methodology.

I suggest Testlabs invests in some proper equipment; an HPLC for cannabs and a GC for terps and they get some standards and develop a validated protocol if they intend to offer the service to the public, otherwise they may as well be selling wet weed or wooden clogs like the rest of the tourist traps.

GC/MS or HPLC/MS has been the way for years to get reproducible accurate Cannabinoid results.

GC is not the best methodology for cannabis because of the non-consistent destruction of cannabs in the injector. MS is unnecessary for identification if using proper standards of high purity, although can be useful for determination of some terps for which no standards are available, and others which have yet to be identified.

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.

I have seen the HPTLC system in the Leiden laboratory, and have spoken with both Arno and Justin about the method they validated (Phytochem Anal. 2009 Sep-Oct;20(5):421-6). Although they validated a cannab protocol for the HPTLC, they use GC-FID and HPLC in their lab not HPTLC; take that as you wish. Although terpene analysis is possible with TLC/HPTLC for presence, there is no validated methodology published for terp quantification at present and I question whether it is necessary given better techniques exist. With all the set-backs with HPTLC in terms of consumables cost, lower separation, lower resolution, etc, I personally think it's not the way to go. We quantify for 15+ terps, and trust me simply using presence tests is not sufficient to draw any reliable insights.

The only good thing was the price was nothing, the results prove you get what you pay for.

I don't understand the need to test the cannabis for cannabs or terps in a cup setting, the whole point is to use organoleptic means and bioassay to decide what is desirable. As you yourself have said before, do you see whisky judging (enjoyment) competitions choosing the best whiskey by alcohol content? How about wine, is the best wine the one with the highest percentage of alcohol? All Whiskey drinkers would prefer a Lagavulin, Oban or Laphroaig over a bottle of 99% lab grade ethanol, cannabis is no different. Only a testosterone driven, testicle swinging industry like the cannabis seed/ cannabis tourism industry would be so shameful to suggest that all there is to cannabis is the concentration of THC on the flowers. We'd do better to set an example and move away from such ignorant bravado imnsho- we're not teenagers looking to get high, we are connoisseurs of the plant and all her marvels, so let's set an example of such as we move forward.

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.

Clearly; I had the exact same thought.

If 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.

I think such an event would do much better to forego the testing and include a seminar, wherein 'students' would be able to sit with a mentor for a tasting of various varietals of differing cannabinoid contents and strengths, as well as experience varietals with different and known terpene contents, like a wine tasting. There is far too much dick waving already in this industry, and I personally am sick of the bravado of those who know absolutely nothing about what is in their medicine. I'm sick of hearing "mine is the best", from people that can't tell us why or how they are different.

I don't like to come off as a downer to everyone's party, but do feel the need to suggest that the IC cup crew don't need to follow the testing example of other cups, which is really just a plug for someone's company aka financial interest. Once people have the opportunity to smoke different cannabis samples with differing levels of cannabs and different terp profiles, they quickly learn that the most potent (highest THC concentration) is not always the one they want to reach for during their daily routine.

We should be educating palettes not following the THC-chasing crowd, but hey that's just my opinion.

-Chimera

 

[GrassMan]

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.
-SamS

Hi,
As I know, CANNA runs analysis with GC/FID, not GC/MS.
You can see the info on CBD-Crew website.
http://cbdcrew.org/varieties/cbd-medihaze/
I have almost no experience with MS but I've been told by a few Analytical Chemists that GC/FID is more accurate for quantitative analysis than GC/MS.
From other side, Dr. Jeffrey C. Raber from The Wec Shop says that GC destroys some THC regardless its detector. The test was done against HPLC running the same sample.
http://humboldt-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/2148/1628/HIIMR_Raber.mp4?sequence=2
Peace.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

CANNA used GC/MS, now they use GC/FID in Spain.
I used GC/FID for 20 years. The mp4 file of Jeffery's is big I guess it says it will take 2 days to download.
I always used GC as I had no interest in oral THC and the tiny loss is much less then the loss by smoking in fact. I have an HPLC I used occasionally but I used the GC almost daily.
-SamS

Hi,
As I know, CANNA runs analysis with GC/FID, not GC/MS.
You can see the info on CBD-Crew website.
http://cbdcrew.org/varieties/cbd-medihaze/
I have almost no experience with MS but I've been told by a few Analytical Chemists that GC/FID is more accurate for quantitative analysis than GC/MS.
From other side, Dr. Jeffrey C. Raber from The Wec Shop says that GC destroys some THC regardless its detector. The test was done against HPLC running the same sample.
http://humboldt-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/2148/1628/HIIMR_Raber.mp4?sequence=2
Peace.

 

[JamieShoes]

whilst I think it's really interesting to get a handle on some of these numbers, I don't really believe they are the end all and B all of everything. I don't believe breeding [purely for THC is a noble pursuit and I DO believe there is far more going on within the profile than many of us really understand.

I would be more interested to hear of Sams work with Terpene seclusion... this would help us all move closer to a full understanding of exactly whats going on within the profile and how that relates to us as "users"...

I can tell you from personal experience that my most powerful marijuana related experiences had little to do with overall THC content (They were with things like Oaxacan Gold, Durban Poison and straight up old school Thai).

I'm not a scientist, just a conscientious dopehead... please feel free to put me straight on anything you disagree with


PS I still think the idea of testing is very interesting ..

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

That is much better than the prices quoted on their website; 50 euros for a certificate

B – BASIC ANALYSES
Without a certificate, showing only the quantitative ratios of the primary cannabinoids.
100 euro (per sample).

C – ADVANCED ANALYSES
With a certificate, showing the quantitative ratios of the primary cannabinoids and the print-effect relationships.
150 euro (per sample).

D – PREMIUM ANALYSES
A full analysis report showing the following: Quantitative ratios of primary cannabinoids.
Botany, physical and phytochemical properties. Profile-effect and dose-effect relationships.
Pharmacological action. Therapeutic uses and pharmaceutical file.
180 euro (per sample).




Do we have to start from somewhere? I am not sure what these results added to the cup, and I don't see how the THC content of the varieties are of any value to people judging by organoleptic means. See below



Best use of TLC is for differentiating different cannabinoid chemotypes, Chemotype I, II, II etc and refining populations for further screening. It is not a useful technique for quantification.



As long as the 420 cup in is NL, Farmalyse is the best option but I don't know if they will do recreational cannabis; they do perform the tests in NL for the Bureau of Medicinal Cannabis, and however are certainly using a validated methodology.

No they will not.

I suggest Testlabs invests in some proper equipment; an HPLC for cannabs and a GC for terps and they get some standards and develop a validated protocol if they intend to offer the service to the public, otherwise they may as well be selling wet weed or wooden clogs like the rest of the tourist traps.




GC is not the best methodology for cannabis because of the non-consistent destruction of cannabs in the injector. MS is unnecessary for identification if using proper standards of high purity, although can be useful for determination of some terps for which no standards are available, and others which have yet to be identified.

We used GC/FID in our lab, we had analytical standards of the top 25 Cannabinoids and even more terpenes.

I have seen the HPTLC system in the Leiden laboratory, and have spoken with both Arno and Justin about the method they validated (Phytochem Anal. 2009 Sep-Oct;20(5):421-6). Although they validated a cannab protocol for the HPTLC, they use GC-FID and HPLC in their lab not HPTLC; take that as you wish. Although terpene analysis is possible with TLC/HPTLC for presence, there is no validated methodology published for terp quantification at present and I question whether it is necessary given better techniques exist. With all the set-backs with HPTLC in terms of consumables cost, lower separation, lower resolution, etc, I personally think it's not the way to go. We quantify for 15+ terps, and trust me simply using presence tests is not sufficient to draw any reliable insights.

Have you read Arno's HPTGC paper? Did it not imply that it was just as dependable as GC or HPLC?
I have never used HPTLC I was thinking it might be cheaper and faster and easier? Am I wrong? I got quotes on a complete HPTLC set up today, totaly automated to remove most prep errors.
In my lab we analyzed for around 25 Cannabinoids ( our focus at the time ) and 50 terpenes, and yes a terpene and Cannabinoid analysis gives many insights, terpenes are the future.

I don't understand the need to test the cannabis for cannabs or terps in a cup setting, the whole point is to use organoleptic means and bioassay to decide what is desirable. As you yourself have said before, do you see whisky judging (enjoyment) competitions choosing the best whiskey by alcohol content? How about wine, is the best wine the one with the highest percentage of alcohol? All Whiskey drinkers would prefer a Lagavulin, Oban or Laphroaig over a bottle of 99% lab grade ethanol, cannabis is no different. Only a testosterone driven, testicle swinging industry like the cannabis seed/ cannabis tourism industry would be so shameful to suggest that all there is to cannabis is the concentration of THC on the flowers. We'd do better to set an example and move away from such ignorant bravado imnsho- we're not teenagers looking to get high, we are connoisseurs of the plant and all her marvels, so let's set an example of such as we move forward.

If you think my focus is THC or the rest of the Cannabinoids you are mistaken, my focus is the terpenes+THC and people need analysis to try and understand them. I have tried to explain to people for the last decade that THC was a important but small part of the different effects found in Cannabis. The only way people can learn is by understanding the different terpenes, how can they do that without analysis? I expected that several of the winners would have lower THC levels then other samples that did not win, that is how it has been at any cup we analyzed the entries of. That is how the masses can learn.




Clearly; I had the exact same thought.



I think such an event would do much better to forego the testing and include a seminar, wherein 'students' would be able to sit with a mentor for a tasting of various varietals of differing cannabinoid contents and strengths, as well as experience varietals with different and known terpene contents, like a wine tasting. There is far too much dick waving already in this industry, and I personally am sick of the bravado of those who know absolutely nothing about what is in their medicine. I'm sick of hearing "mine is the best", from people that can't tell us why or how they are different.

I don't like to come off as a downer to everyone's party, but do feel the need to suggest that the IC cup crew don't need to follow the testing example of other cups, which is really just a plug for someone's company aka financial interest. Once people have the opportunity to smoke different cannabis samples with differing levels of cannabs and different terp profiles, they quickly learn that the most potent (highest THC concentration) is not always the one they want to reach for during their daily routine.

I agree, maybe do you want to bring samples next year to share and educate, I do not know anyone here that has the samples already tested, and the time to spend with students? I am retired and do not have the different Cannabis required to do the job. You can not do analysis at a good lab here the Government does not allow it anymore.
When testing was first brought up here for the IC it was said to be HPTLC not TLC, I found out it was TLC and that was a big bummer for me.
-SamS

We should be educating palettes not following the THC-chasing crowd, but hey that's just my opinion.

-Chimera

THC is important but as I have said many times 100% pure THC is boring as hell. THC is a small part of the picture, terpenes are the real stars, and for them analysis is important, as is the terpene content of the entries. That is how people will learn until Mentor student classes can be started by you or others.
The people chasing Dabs are already understanding that Dabs are stronger but not better in many ways.
I sure hope the whole Dab thing is gone when anyone can buy dry Cannabis plants at a cheap price to use for dry sifting, then most will not think Dabs are so great, they have little choice at this point as Dabs are the strongest in THC, and "good" for people that have lousey Cannabis that they can not sell, maybe with mold or mildew, just extract it...
-SamS

 

[JamieShoes]

offtopic - removed by JS

 

[gaiusmarius]

well i was actually interested to see how the scores would relate to the test results. i'm fully aware that thc content alone does not make or break a strain. the sour power that has won more cups then i can count was recently tested in spannabis by canna and it had 10% thc, that stuff is still one of my favorites, seems a perfect balance of active ingredients. so yeah most people know it's not the thc alone, but these tests were supposed to show us more about this. the test results were not available to the judges till after the cup was decided, so it's not like the tests could have any effect on how people vote.

in the end i don't mind if there is a job less, but i do believe it would be interesting to test for mold, pesticides, heavy metals and salts as well as terp content. it will help people to learn what strains of their have which terps in them as well as showing us if any pesticides or molds are on the sample. we also have to concede that some very high % thc strains are also very good. so it's still interesting to know what kind of thc levels are present in a bud.

btw Sam do you agree that the numbers are useless, or is that 2% +/- you mentioned in the other thread true?