Curious how anyone involved in the CA rec market feels about this DCC mandated canna method ?
Looks like a good number of labs are validated on it currently. Laboratories in compliance with the DCC standard cannabinoid test method - Department of Cannabis Control
Do you think we will still regularly see CoAs with flower over 40%THCA ?
Pretty sure theyre saying over 30% will be rare
I personally think a lab who is wanting to inflate canna results is going to find a way.
I think the CA market has gotten accustomed to higher than realistic canna numbers because the state opened up recreational use years before they required labs to be accredited
Not too big of a deal until edible makers are consistently off target bc their math is all based on skewed numbers of their input.
What’s interesting to me is that this new standard only applies to non-infused products like packaged flower and basic pre-rolls. These will be the only labs able to test these products. Edibles, cartridges, and everything else can still be COA’d by other labs using the same old standards.
Sure they can find a way. But with a standard method for sample prep, calibration, and integration - it will be much harder for them to hide what they are doing.
Already we are seeing a drop in potency levels.
I only hope that operators out there wake up to what they have done to themselves (blowing smoke up customer butts makes most customers unhappy).
And I feel bad for people who thought they were producing something they never were… I assume they all knew and were making that choice, but what it they were not and now their nutrient and trimming practices are in question? Or what if they were having seriously inefficient processes in their manufacturing - but bogus results kept telling them things were OK?
Hopefully it will make it a bit better and some of the consumer advocacy law suits will go away. I’d hate to see those get even more traction and all the sudden the industry dies because people been sued by consumers for false advertising/labeling…
The methods for testing those always seemed a bit more on target. Not excellent but way better than bogus flower numbers.
I’m hopeful that even without these other things being included in the new rule - more accountability, accuracy, and precision will come along everywhere else.
I can say for sure as a processor that having bogus flower numbers made everything I do look like the most inefficient hogwash. That’s why we had to have our own in-house checks. 
Which I think is much more realistic. I recently tested some off the shelf prerolls that had CoAs showing +40% that came back at 18%
There is a lot of finger pointing at who is to blame for the inflation, retail customers, distro companies, farmers, testing labs, etc. But at the end of the day Ive had 15% flower that I prefer to smoke over many 25% strains
I am surprised they did not mandate this method for concentrates. But it is flawed enough as it is.
I hope they go back to the drawing board and take feedback from the open comment periods before expanding this canna method to other products than un-infused flower
I’m so happy this finally happened. I been telling the shops all the flower numbers are fucked for years. Excited for things to finally be based in reality
Anything over 27% for flower will be flagged and dcc may ask for a retest. Inknow products that were getting 35% are now in the 17-25% range.
Custy here. I’m really glad to see real numbers. Anything over the low twenties I call bs. I would really like to know. The inflated numbers don’t impress or excite me.
Standardized methods are key. Could you imagine if your Dr. said “Listen, your going to love your next plan results. We’ve got a new provider and everyone’s numbers are looking great!” No. We don’t want to see what we want to see. We want to see what is really going on.
This all day. If 17% is the new 28%, we’ve been making extraction look really inefficient. In-house analytics are key to track the yields throughout the process.
@Cassin have you used the Orange Photonics Light Lab at all? Thoughts?
Yes. It is functional. I like what Jill has done with it. I do not like the specialized consumables at all - especially because they cost a fuckton more than necessary. I get that people need to make money - I don’t understand why they want to make SO MUCH money off poor farmers.
I’ve only used them for testing material in the field (like outside in a field). and finding out about the specialized consumables (which are not labeled according to their contents, or at least they were not at the time…) was after everything had already popped hot and caused everyone to freak the fuck out. Only for me to redo everything with their consumables and get everything to pass.
But its very portable. The instructions are easy to follow. I also felt like the accuracy and precision were middling - but then I’m using the damn thing in a field, in the back of a van… you know?
Our light lab likes to call d9 d8 randomly and without explanation. Really scared the hell out of me a few times.
Only if the method being mandated is well designed. This required method was not well designed.
The DCC is requiring a 40mL extraction when I was previously using 10mL. A significantly higher financial and environmental impact per sample.
They also lowered the subsample mass from 0.5g (same every other method) then dropped the mass required for cannas to 0.2g. Again not that big of a deal, but the whole argument for a larger sample mass was to have a more representative subsample. I guess that’s out the window now
Requiring cannas to be reported by dry weight when they are trying to limit artificially inflated canna content?! Why require a crude test like loss on drying then use that incorrect water weight to calculate the reported canna numbers? Anyone will tell you that weed in an oven is cooking off more than just water.
The method itself does not separate d9THC and CBNA! I understand CBNA is not adding a significant % to total cannas in most flower samples, but it is still regularly occurring, and the compound is available in many standard mixes.
All in all I still hope the goal of bringing flower numbers back down to a realistic number is achieved. I just wish the DCC was not so bullheaded and would take some critique on their method before mandating it and setting the bar for future methods/legislation.
I am biased, but you should invest in a decent HPLC. They aren’t that hard to run
@ShuckleBerryFinn I have one and it was kind of a waste of money. Potency test same day is like $45 at my local lab. It was useful during the time I was doing heavy rnd but now I don’t need potency other than what to put on the label so the HPLC just sits. I can understand it’s value in markets where potency testing isn’t as accessible as it is for me but I’ll gladly pay a few hundred a week to not have to touch it and have that time for things that actually produce revenue.
absolutely correct.
My experience has been that providing feedback in the defined channels has been received and acted upon (albeit slowly) when provided.
For me this has included: submitting public comments, submitting administrative rule change requests, writing letter to legislators asking for their help, attending public hearings, submitting my own revisions to standards, participating in international volunteer organizations for standardization of testing, and generally showing up.
Here is an example of them taking feedback and updating the language. I didn’t like all the changes myself and I sometimes wonder what other people think of my comments and what kind of comments other people are submitting…
Based on your comments here, I imagine that you are also showing up in this way. I’m sorry if you feel like your feedback isn’t being heard. This method mimics two of the international standards pretty darn well. Are you involved in changing those? There is a big meeting to discuss them next week in Kentucky.
I found your comment about moisture content using loss on drying to be peculiar. Are you concerned that all the other things that are off-gassing would somehow invalidate the amount of cannabinoids present in the dry sample? Regardless if they are water or not, those escaping volatiles would still be included in the final calculation, don’t you think? And I suppose you could quantify them in a different way than using Loss on Drying - California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 15717 doesn’t actually say to use LOD - it says to test for water activity and moisture content. There are other instruments for these tests - I don’t know that they would address your concern though. 
I believe nearly every testing lab out there is using a drying oven for this calculation due to costs and ease of use. Although I would prefer to see more exact methods such as fischer titration, I understand most customers do not care to be so precise and are not wanting to pay for the additional costs.
I am unsure why the DCC requires cannas to be reported by dry weight when this is not mentioned or required for any other tests, pesticides, mycotoxins, metals, etc.
Any info or links to this meeting in Kentucky? I was not aware of it, but would like to submit comments, questions, concerns