In OR
Well we can’t help with OR compliance CoAs, but if you’re interested in vetting a lab for your R&D purposes, shoot me a pm
1 Like
Meanwhile, across the river in Illinois, a mere cannabinoid test was $350 last I checked, and that has probably gone up. The fees are state mandated, which violates every federal anti trust law but it doesnt matter. The lab licenses only go to a small handful of very highly connected individuals and it is a license to print money.
1 Like
It takes a metric fuck ton of money to start up a lab. Without a lab you can’t have an industry. All I’m saying is try pricing an HPLC/MS/MS system, a couple of UPLC systems… and that doesn’t even touch the microbial side- before complaining about high testing prices.
3 Likes
What’s a cannabinoid test cost on the west coast? 35 bucks? There’s a reason the government isnt allowed to fix prices. It inevitably leads to corruption. But those laws are federal, so they’re not enforced against the states in this instance. If cannabis were to become federally legal, price fixing lab tests would stop right away.
The place we go, in CO, potency/terps are $35. Pesticides and residuals are closer to $50 i believe, microbials are closer to $90 and homogeneity is $125 or so. I’m assuming costs go down after the market is more established and competition stops the gouging.
This too
Those prices are a result of a race to the bottom. $35 to run potency (for state mandatory compliance testing) is too fucking low. You cannot expect knowledgeable people running your analysis for those prices, certainly can’t expect mass spec at those prices. Also IME higher prices equal less potency juicing as the main motive for the lab is extra money.
5 Likes
I agree. How do these labs pay their employees? Do they have adequate quality controls? Are the results accurate?
You get what you pay for and the testing industry is certainly no exception.
4 Likes
Oh yeah, prices are crazy. A full panel compliance test with terpenes here is $610. That would been $150 or less back in CO.
I understand it’s a new market, which comes with pros and cons, but man this is one frustrating con.
2 Likes
Yeah he could definitely run in-house analytics for us. And I know that would be beneficial for us. this all makes sense… It sounds like we are in for a long struggle before this gets better. Whether it be in-house analytics, lobbying for stricter rules and enforcement, or both.
It’s just crazy when a lab is telling us our bulk distillate is ND on all pesticides, then fails our carts for pbo/paclo from the same exact batch of disty that a they told us was clean… Our attorney is in contact with the state about it constantly, so the wheels are turning… Just gonna take time I suppose. Based on the responses here, it seems like this isn’t a very uncommon thing
1 Like
Are you adding terps to your disty for the carts? Are the terps clean for pesticides?
We are. We have tested the terps and disty separately with the same lab, prior to adding them to the disty, and they both back ND. Then, we mix the two, put it in cartridges and they say there’s pbo or paclo. This doesn’t happen every time, but definitely more than once or twice.
Fortunately, one lab seems to be trying to work with us and has started verifying strange results like these via mass spec, and this has definitely helped.
3 Likes
It is concerning that the original lab is calling pesticides without a MS.
3 Likes
Very concerning. And every lab but one (there’s only like 6-7 of them) will tell you straight up, they don’t verify anything with orthogonal methods, because they aren’t required to. It’s causing trouble for a lotttt of cultivators and processors out here.
The pesticides method they are running is most likely by MS, probably LC-MS… Possibly on a combo of GC and LC to cover the full panel. I don’t see anyone running full panel of 20+ pesticides without an MS detector involved.
But they should be confirming the sample “unknown hit” to the known pesticide standard ran within the same injection sequence (ie same day, same mobile phase, same instrument). If the fragmentation pattern is the same and RT lines up… That’s a positive in most any industry (so it’s not just shady cannabis analysis) unless there is a known coelution/isomer problem with that method. Having an orthogonal confirmation method for 20+ pesticides would be untenable.
5 Likes
It would be nice if they’d use something like chemical ionization to get a big fat M+H peak and not have to worry about fragmentation but I’m sure that even more hassle.
1 Like
It’s a nightmare here , I agree. We have juggled 3 different labs and have had all sorts of stuff come back from ethanol in distilate, D8 in distillate, DCM and acetone, super low thc numbers. 1%-2 % terps on r&d carts mixed at 5&10% mint terps, lots of variables on the same batches of distillate when sending in multiple of the same samples.
3 Likes
As much as I hate to hear your troubles, it is at least reassuring to hear others are experiencing the same shit. It’s a shit show right now.
We’re on day 23 of waiting on test results for carts. They have almost 9000 carts across 8 batches held up for over 3 weeks now lol. it’s crazy man. so much cash flow held up because of these labs.
2 Likes
I would just like to say that EKG doesn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. tried them over a year ago when first commissioning our lab and they were giving me joke results (super low for what the product was, distillate being all THCA, not understanding basic math in infused product formulation) Had to test with them due to my higher ups wanting to for some reason and they give me back potency tests 20% lower than what our normal lab showed. like we are talking shit crude oil territory the oil won’t even move like its close to that percentage do they not have people with basic cannabis knowledge doing idiot checks?
1 Like
Do you know of a pool of folks looking to perform analytical lab work who also have that experience? Where did they gain it in a newly legal state? Do they have the required chemistry background?
It’s gonna take a bit before y’all’s have the required experience in state, and it will take longer still to drive the folks who don’t improve out.
The analytical lab I first worked with in Oregon didn’t know anything about cannabis when they opened. But unlike all the other labs available at the time, they knew analytical chemistry. Every other lab was apparently formed and staffed by folks experienced in cannabis, but they knew nothing, and I mean nothing, about statistics or chemistry.
Yeah, I had to work with them to get them where I needed them to be, but actual scientists don’t mind being shown best practices or how to improve their analysis. They thrive on it. It didn’t take them but six months to get into the swing of things.
Having worked alongside the director for ten years before he started that venture made that journey much easier.
10 Likes