Potency Testing, Terpene Profiling, & Accuracy?

[symbiote420]

You should try reading the science. It's not so bad when its done right. Your life is based off science. Its happening all around you... BTW, I have never seen a piece of literature that states aspartame is good for anyone. Salt is most definitely essential for life, Na is an electrolyte. Sugar? Needed for ATP.

Science says milk does a body good, well I'm lactose intolerant, commonsense tells me different! Potency is subjective at best, what floors one might not rock the boat for another!

Honestly though, who tosses their best cut(s) after smoking it because it didn't test higher than a sister that doesn't smoke better?

 

[mofeta]

It's a bit like the thing with spinach....

Yeah that is a good example. Nutritional "science" was anything but until recently. I completely dismissed most of the conventional wisdom these people spouted for the last 40 years or so. When the "experts" said that things like nuts, avocados and eggs were bad for you, and that you should stuff yourself with simple carbohydrates and partially hydrogenated oils, the absurdity of it offended me deeply. I actually developed a contrarian attitude towards the mainstream of thought on nutrition during the worst of it, if they strongly cautioned against a certain food, I would increase my consumption of it. If they recommended the consumption of a certain food I excluded it from my diet. This, I hate to say, was actually a very good strategy. My contrarian diet consited of unprocessed meats and fish full of saturated fat, unprocessed fatty plant foods like avocados, nuts, etc with lots of monounsaturated fats, and copius fresh, colorful vegetables. I completely avoided the huge quantities of processed simple carbs and trans-fat oils they recommended.

So you picked what I consider the best example (one of the best anyway) in modern times of complete, almost criminal scientific malpractice. At least truth is coming around now. I see that recently they have even considered withdrawing their fatwa on saturated fat. Of course in a few more years they will try to put on airs that they knew it all the time lol.

Just to be clear, I know the used techniques for THC and terpene determination and so on very well, they are a part of my education and job. Hence, I know their pitfalls too.

Then I'm sure you would agree that foolproof statistical methods have shown that the precision of all these (various analytical techniques Sam mentions using) in the hands of a competent technician is very high. I think that the trueness of the results that a skilled technician here is also pretty high. For example, if Sam analyzed a sample and said it was 17.6% of some component, I would be very surprised if it were actually only 14%, or 22%.

True, I'm a novice in cannabis breeding but not in the scientific context we're talking about; maybe that gives my 'behaviour' a stubborn or arrogant appearance?.

Well, I think that saying with a tone of great authority and condescension something like:

BTW: That crap with 20% THC really 'turns my bile'... No cannabis plant contains 20% THC of its dry matter! It is very important to state the % of what: extract, total cannabinoids or total compounds detected (and obviously with which detection method cause most aren't really quantitative).

could influence someone like Sam to form a less than stellar opinion about the state of the speaker's knowledge, and quality of attitude.

 

[numberguy]

Concede we know there is a modifier does'nt matter what we call it terpenes is good and maybe it. So we must add another layer to breeding. Now we need practical info to identify terpenes and the way to add them breeding or enviorment? If you dont smoke flowers it will be hard to enpart taste to us, so we must go back to descriptive words used to describe good bud or the flowers to be used to breed with. If terpenes are the smell we allready know what to look for just not how to enhance. What pressure can we apply to create and enhance smells or terpenes? Identify the terpenes please.

 

[SirStynkalot]

There are a lot of modifiers. trich head count per mm2 is another one.

I'll be running my own set of ring tests throughout central and eastern Washington in about 6 months. Can't tackle the west coast by myself - they have friggin dozens of guys doing em. I'd run outta weed. I'll make sure to post the results of my tests.

As far as common sense vs science argument goes, please keep preaching Symbiote. The more people you bring around to your way of thinking, the higher my profits are. I would absolutely love it if all my competition refused to crack a book until "deficiency" diagnosis time.

Individual brain chemistry affects how people react to cannabinoids. Potency is the concentration of cannabinoids. Concentration is a good standard to measure average effect by. The main reason to get your stuff tested is if you're selling to many other people instead of picking personal favorites.

 

[high life 45]

Glad to see some action in this thread!

Some serious ring testing needs to happen.

Science says milk does a body good, well I'm lactose intolerant, commonsense tells me different!

Science doesnt say dairy milk is good for you, INDUSTRY says milk is good for you.

Science says milk is for babies, and cow milk is for baby cows,
Science does not say you are a baby cow.

Glycogen is used by many of our cells and is a form of sugar.

 

[bobblehead]

Science says as you get older you stop producing the enzyme lactase which breaks down milk sugars. The absence of lactase is what causes the indigestion. Some people supplement their natural lactase in order to consume dairy.



Edit: btw, this is the Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science forum.

 

[symbiote420]

Science says as you get older you stop producing the enzyme lactase which breaks down milk sugars. The absence of lactase is what causes the indigestion. Some people supplement their natural lactase in order to consume dairy.



Edit: btw, this is the Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science forum.

Guess that edit was meant as a sneak diss

Since you're such a smart ass why haven't you answered any of the questions I posed? Seems you'd rather take it off topic focusing on a couple metaphors I stated poorly when you know damn well what I meant or was atleast trying to get at, can you answer one of my questions or contribute to the thread other than trying to correct me? You're starting to act worse than my wife!

Edit: Apparently I've been on your mind for the last two days, reading up on lactose intolerance and all just to post that BS when you could have researched a legitimate answer to atleast one of the questions I posed! Logic seems to be becoming a lost science with all these books around most are only contradicting the other ...ever heard you can't believe everything you read!!!

 

[Only Ornamental]

Then I'm sure you would agree that foolproof statistical methods have shown that the precision of all these (various analytical techniques Sam mentions using) in the hands of a competent technician is very high. I think that the trueness of the results that a skilled technician here is also pretty high. For example, if Sam analyzed a sample and said it was 17.6% of some component, I would be very surprised if it were actually only 14%, or 22%.
Sure I do agree. And if Sam says he tested 17.6% I suppose his sample was about that. But it remains a 'suppose' because I don't know him personally and he didn't share his method with me . To contribute something to the topic: The often found two decimal places may be accurate concerning the sample tested but should be rounded to the next integer (i.e. 17.62% -> 18%). Although, the more digits after the comma, the better the customers impression on the capability of the test lab, right?

Well, I think that saying with a tone of great authority and condescension something like:

could influence someone like Sam to form a less than stellar opinion about the state of the speaker's knowledge, and quality of attitude.
I suppose that one will stick to me... Guess I'd think the same about someone else with that attitude LOL. Maybe I should try to talk me out of the affair by blaming my English skills .

I think we (you, Sam and I) are all illiterates ... cause originally, I was stating that no cannabis PLANT contains 20% THC. And then all of a sudden, it was about BUDS and non of us remarked it...
For the record: I guess (now) that manicured buds may contain 20+ % THC but I have still the opinion that the statement of certain seed companies their STRAIN would contain that much is untrue.

And I still would like to get my hands on some properly written methods. One I found included a drying step after a first extraction followed by an 'appropriate' dilution: Quantifying essential oils ('terpenes') like that is most certainly a stupid idea. If someone uses that method and dares to publish it, why should I trust their other skills and procedures?


For the sake of this thread: Please everyone, keep it civilised, it would be a pity if this thread went down the drain.
Heated discussions YES, name-calling NO. Several of us (me too) went more or less OT but that ain't no reason to start bitching around if we're told to rail back in.
Some of us may not be adults but most of us are at least old enough to light one; that means, we can take a hit (pun intended) without too much drama.

 

[shaggyballs]

@ OO

I personally don't mind your tone so to speak ....I myself once misunderstood your demeanor.

What I do like about our heated discussions is I usually leave the conversation with something !!

With others I just seem to have more questions after the conversation then when I started.

But then again I am still in kindergarten compared to some minds here!!

If we are open minded and seek all possibilities then we will eventually stumble upon the truth.

If all on this forum could combine our knowledge into 1 brain we could (RULE THE CANNABIS WORLD)

But on a serious note:
We are all on a quest for knowledge!
So let's not get hung up on who is the biggest dog on the block...Ya know.

Peace to everyone here!!!!
shag

 

[SirStynkalot]

Yeah, measuring e-peens is a bit pointless here. Pics or it didn't happen. Speaking of which, mine's 10 inches and much, much wider than Skunkman's. It's like a cheese wheel. Srsly guys, Sam's done his homework for a long time and knows a lot but I didn't realize we were standing in line to jack off the big guy round here. I thought we were discussing testing.

One of the things I will say for WA's new recreational scene is that all labs have to be board certified by liquor control. It should at least HELP with the nonsense we're seeing from closet chemists. I haven't looked through their requirements to get one of those labs certified but I believe there are some basics for education, training, and equipment. Right now there are a few dispensaries in town that do "in house testing" and claim the lowest stuff on their shelves is about 20%. I'll eat my hat if it's over 12, but they still get away with charging $15 a gram (<10 is the average). The consumers just don't know any better. So long as my competition in the legal market can't get away with just making up a number and sticking it on their bags I'm happy.

I don't really think that the THC testing's going to be great for diversity in the market. People who just go by the numbers are going to get high as heck but it probably isn't going to be all that pleasant for most of them. My all time favorite strain is p98 Bubba and I haven't seen a batch of that test over 14%. I prefer the effects when it's about half amber. I work all day and can't afford to smoke high potency weed - I need the calming, relaxing, painkilling effects. Now, I just got back from Hawaii and smoked some stuff that was grassy, seedy, and ugly as heck - and I literally hallucinated from it. Potency was through the roof but thank god I didn't get any work related calls while I was trippin on friggin marijuana. I was actually kinda pissed - I quit takin real drugs in the middle of college and wasn't expecting or looking for that kind of head change.

Potency's a good standard for measuring effect but I really hope the retailers offer a very high level of customer service to help them understand what the labels mean. That's where this is eventually going to all fall for me - I sell through a middle man, so I need to sell the middle man on my product if I want him to sell it to the public for me in spite of its potency profiles. I promise the stuff I have will be good but I'm not going to chop at half milky half clear regardless of strain.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

There are a lot of modifiers. trich head count per mm2 is another one.

I'll be running my own set of ring tests throughout central and eastern Washington in about 6 months. Can't tackle the west coast by myself - they have friggin dozens of guys doing em. I'd run outta weed. I'll make sure to post the results of my tests.

As far as common sense vs science argument goes, please keep preaching Symbiote. The more people you bring around to your way of thinking, the higher my profits are. I would absolutely love it if all my competition refused to crack a book until "deficiency" diagnosis time.

Individual brain chemistry affects how people react to cannabinoids. Potency is the concentration of cannabinoids. Concentration is a good standard to measure average effect by. The main reason to get your stuff tested is if you're selling to many other people instead of picking personal favorites.

It might be the main reason, but not the only reason...
I do it for the science and to help with my breeding.
-SamS

 

[jimmyd42]

The main testing lab in WA seems to have gone full retard and is now posting pages of 25-35% weed test results.

Whats going on here?

They are selling that stuff in stores advertising it has 33.5% THC, is it even possible to get plants with that high THC content? With random, average, old strains?

http://analytical360.com/testresults

 

[high life 45]

Yeah everyone seems to be onboard with higher results these days.

 

[jimmyd42]

That f***in sucks!! I can't believe it! They sell that stuff here in state licensed stores, it was even on tv news the other day with a reporter showing a 33.5% strain!

I read on another board that the owner of analytics360.com, the only state licensed tester in WA, has changed the "standard" for measuring lab results and now adds a fixed 20-something % to the results, because obviously no one wants to buy 5-10% legal weed.

WTF

Seriously, isn't this fraud?

And in the end, WHY REQUIRE TESTING WHEN THE TESTS ARE BOGUS AFTER ALL?

 

[Ras Mason]

Concede we know there is a modifier does'nt matter what we call it terpenes is good and maybe it. So we must add another layer to breeding. Now we need practical info to identify terpenes and the way to add them breeding or enviorment? If you dont smoke flowers it will be hard to enpart taste to us, so we must go back to descriptive words used to describe good bud or the flowers to be used to breed with. If terpenes are the smell we allready know what to look for just not how to enhance. What pressure can we apply to create and enhance smells or terpenes? Identify the terpenes please.

Genome being mapped, i beleive over 500 varieties right now. gene sequencers are commonplace in ¨real scientific community¨.
Somato embryo genesis and all the goodies that come with choosing your genes in vitro.
S. knows.
peace.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Genome being mapped, i beleive over 500 varieties right now. gene sequencers are commonplace in ¨real scientific community¨.
Somato embryo genesis and all the goodies that come with choosing your genes in vitro.
S. knows.
peace.

Knowing the genome doesn't help much if you don't know what to look for . AFAIK, we don't know yet which genes, markers, or alleles are beneficial. We only know what's advantageous on a transcriptome/proteome level in the flower clusters and more precisely resin glands; but that doesn't make things much easier...
Also, in vitro techniques won't make the weed better or speed up your progeny selection. It might reduce space when producing clones of the desired plant.

 

[Bubbleblower]

Maybe I'm blind, maybe it's really not there but I couldn't find a reference to '% of what'. Not even which sort of %, is it by weight, mol, TIC, vol. or whatever (pretty sloppy work that)?

You're not blind, you just don't want to see.

Strains with >20% THC are very normal, not fiction, but science.
Breeders making these claims are not lying, but rather abusing the fact most people are unaware of that.

 

[Only Ornamental]

You're not blind, you just don't want to see.

Strains with >20% THC are very normal, not fiction, but science.
Breeders making these claims are not lying, but rather misusing the fact most people are unaware of that.

Hi (Sorry, couldn't find the other smiley with the bubbles )

I nearly feel insulted...
I'm not asking if it were possible (my latest attempt calculating it says it might, although approaching the biological limit of feasibility) but to what exactly the % refer to .

In the meantime, I found out that it's usually % of a selected dried bud.
Still, most sources, may they be commercial or scientific, don't indicate the unit of the % (for example weight, volume, mole, tic, AUC etc.). In a scientific context, weight percent of dry matter seem to be used most of the times (as it should) but the method is usually non-reproducible due lacking data. Some commercial labs state that they use this unit too, others indicate strange and unclear things (the chromatograms I saw often looked like % AUC of detected extractable matter -> an error many students make), whereas most don't bother with the precise unit at all. That makes me as a scientist wonder...

Anyway, I do think that most of the modern analytical tools used in the cannabizz aren't really used for breeding nor help in any regard other than being a cool gimmick to flush money into the 'labs' pockets... Just my two cents.

 

[Ras Mason]

Hi Ornemental.
Well, if you can answer me this precisely with such certainty, then you can only be one of the persons i have in mind.

I follow your point. Quite correct.

Are you acquainted with the latest news ?

I fail to see how the virtual somatic seeds could be created other than in an in-vitro scenario...
I hear the whole point is to produce exact phenotypical copies in every seed...

I am no scientist by any means. this is quite obvious.
peace
rm

 

[Ras Mason]

to come back to the subject at hands, usng chro/gs for terpenes and HPLC for cannabinoid
is protocole dependant no?
I to have heard that they add a 10% over now because it s trendy....
lol