"Some marijuana businesses – such as growers, processors and manufacturers – are shopping around for labs that will give them the results they want to see in the way of THC potency and contaminants, according to industry officials.
Other cannabis businesses are said to be sending in samples of their marijuana that have been adulterated with spray-on cannabis oil or dusted with THC crystals to give the impression of a higher THC content, among other practices."
“We have clients who test with us and never come back because their numbers are higher elsewhere,” she said.
In addition to higher potency levels, some cannabis businesses also seek favorable results for contaminants, including microbials and heavy metals.
“There are a few labs out there saying, ‘Tell me what you want it to say, and I’ll put it on the label,'” Greenland said."
Just dealing with the dosing on my CBD products Is proving difficult. It seems like I could send the same samples to the same lab a week apart and get very different results.
What you have to do is send two samples of the same thing labeled as different materials so you can say after: “plot twist those were the same thing” when they give you totally different results
I’ve done it, they always say its within their allowed variation of error. If its done by the same tech and machine then switch labs immediately as that is a clear sign the operator doesnt care enough, and their lab doesnt care enough about their employees to get them to care enough.
Yeah that’s why I think it’s better to do both samples together. If it’s a week apart and two different people ran it differently then it’s harder to make the case against which one messed up. Having the same person do it on the same day, same equipment and yield drastically different results is an open-and-shut case in my book. I’d rather spend a little to find out that way up front than give them my business long term.
This is exactly what we did to psi labs in Michigan 5yrs back or so. Took 1 top cola, cut into 3 pieces. All labeled 3 different strains. Got back 3 totally different terp profiles and tcc %.
In mid-2017 we sent samples for testing to 5 labs. The lowest was the most honest, 2 were within 3% and 2 were obviously off the mark by around 7-8% (22% original, 29-30% for the two highest).
If it was gaining ground then, it’s probably business as usual now. The most honest labs will take a hit but hopefully won’t bow since they won’t have as many fines to pay long term.
I mean to be fair that probably wasnt the best way to get a homogeneous sample.
Taking that top bud and grinding it all up together then separating into 3 samples would have been the correct way to provide them 3 of the “same” samples. Your way only provided them 3 similar samples.
I’m not saying your experiment didnt work as it absolutely did since you got a different terp profile but your experiment could have been prepped slightly better.
How does taking 1 bud, cut into 1/3rds, sending as 3 seperate samples differ from your way? It’s not my job to prep said sample, only to drop off and pay $.
I second what @thesk8nmidget said. Variance of potency in the same cola is to be expected, though not as great a difference as when comparing a top cola to popcorn larf from the bottom of the plant.
Homogeneity of the sample (by grinding and mixing) will always provide a more consistent result.
It’s a botanical sample. Variability is the nature of the game with mother nature. Not saying 10, 15, 22%, but you can’t really say you sent the lab 3 duplicate samples unless you homogenized them then split them.
It’s also why usda wants multiple samples averaged and a MU notated.
If one is trying to provide 3 (nearly) identical samples, homogenization is the responsibility of the one preparing the sample. You said that you prepared the sample and dropped it off at the lab. Only if they came out and prepared the sample themselves would the lab be responsible for ensuring the samples were as close to identical as possible.
No one is saying the variance expressed by the lab is accurate or within an acceptable range. All that is being said is that there is variance in the potency of flower, and that variance skews the control aspect of your experiment.
Not when you are trying to test the labs consistency.
I’m not saying this should be common practice with every flower sample.
Your exact scenario isnt what were tallking about as that lab was so shitty they were easily discredited without the needs to provide more similar samples.
I’m just saying if you wanna test a credible/reputable labs consistency you should do the sample prep i mentioned.
Side note for whole totes of biomass testing:
When I’m testing a super sack of biomass that i want to buy you better believe i am taking 5-10 samples with a sample probe to get the biomass from all around the tote. i will then take these 5-10 samples and mix them up, grind them and send them for testing. This gives me a more accurate representation of the average potency of that biomass. Farmers love cherry picking buds for their samples, and i love holding them to a higher standard of consistency and honesty. They also love to cherry pick labs that test higher.
