How does lab testing work?

[anda1anda2]

I recently broke open a larger 2+ gram nug and found the center to be a black hole of dark grey mold about the diameter of a pencil running along the stem in the middle of the bud.

This is lab tested herb from a MMJ dispensary. I bought the herb in December and it came with and was stored with one of those mini 58% boveda packs. It is also super dry in my house so I don’t think it’s a problem on my end.

I’m guessing this was undetected bud rot?

Anyways, it got me wondering about lab testing protocol. I assume it varies some by state regulations, but also assume there are probably some standards.

Anyone familiar with how it works? How good is quality control? How often does bad material make it on the dispensary shelves?

 

[arb]

I have been offered fixed results for a set fee at several labs in two states........as a producer\provider.

 

[anda1anda2]

I have been offered fixed results for a set fee at several labs in two states........as a producer\provider.

Fixed, as in agreed upon/predetermined results?

 

[arb]

As in bumped thc % and zero negatives...........guaranteed.
The prices for that service was higher than the standard prices.........that was in 2010 or so I really hope things have changed but from what I hear it has not.

 

[anda1anda2]

Yikes. Disappointing, but not suprising. There is a larger amount of dirtbags in the cannabis industry than I am comfortable with. Fudging lab results seem like a a potentially lucrative racket.

I have always wondered about fluffed up numbers. It seems reported THC percentages are rising on dispensary product with 30% listings a dime a dozen and almost no sub 20% herb.

 

[Tranquility]

Apparently, if there is chocolate in the edible, it doesn't work that well.

https://gizmodo.com/chocolate-interferes-with-thc-testing-making-it-hard-t-1837629908

Your next chocolatey pot edible could be more or less potent than labeled, new preliminary research suggests. It found that chocolate-based products can sometimes provide inconsistent lab readings on the amount of THC found in them.

Scientists at CW Analytical, a cannabis testing lab in California, had started to notice that their potency readings for THC—the chemical most associated with weed’s high—of the same chocolate edible were sometimes off from one another. That led them to perform an experiment. They tested two different concentrations of ground-up milk chocolate from one edible for their THC potency: a 1,000 milligram sample and a 2,000 milligram sample. They also ran the comparison tests using different volumes of a typical solvent.

Regardless of the amount of the solvent used, the team found, the average readings from the 1,000 milligram samples were higher and more accurate than those pulled from the 2,000 milligram samples. The team’s findings were presented this week at the annual American Chemical Society (ACS) conference...​

Edit:
I see a possible defense against future tests they do. Keep a kiss in the car. (Hershey type.) If ever pulled over, eat it. If they test you, claim the chocolate made the test wrong.

 

[invertedisdead]

Apparently, if there is chocolate in the edible, it doesn't work that well.

https://gizmodo.com/chocolate-interferes-with-thc-testing-making-it-hard-t-1837629908

Your next chocolatey pot edible could be more or less potent than labeled, new preliminary research suggests. It found that chocolate-based products can sometimes provide inconsistent lab readings on the amount of THC found in them.

Scientists at CW Analytical, a cannabis testing lab in California, had started to notice that their potency readings for THC—the chemical most associated with weed’s high—of the same chocolate edible were sometimes off from one another. That led them to perform an experiment. They tested two different concentrations of ground-up milk chocolate from one edible for their THC potency: a 1,000 milligram sample and a 2,000 milligram sample. They also ran the comparison tests using different volumes of a typical solvent.

Regardless of the amount of the solvent used, the team found, the average readings from the 1,000 milligram samples were higher and more accurate than those pulled from the 2,000 milligram samples. The team’s findings were presented this week at the annual American Chemical Society (ACS) conference...​

Edit:
I see a possible defense against future tests they do. Keep a kiss in the car. (Hershey type.) If ever pulled over, eat it. If they test you, claim the chocolate made the test wrong.

I wonder if it's the anandamide playing such a role?

However I've read similar accounts regarding varying potency with cannabis candies, and it seems like the conclusion was insufficient homogenization.

https://future4200.com/t/homogenization-uniform-cannabinoid-potency-in-solutions/296

 

[Baron23]

I live in Maryland where we have a fairly good regulated med market.

Here, every 10 lb lot of flower needs to be sample tested. So, a small sample is randomly pulled from the lot and tested. So yes, its is quite possible for a bud with issues to slip through this.

As for lab results, I agree that growers here shop for the best results. Its not pay for percentage, but they do pick labs that give slightly better (as in higher) results than others.

There is NO standardized test detailed procedure for this as far as I know. That is, we may not be comparing apples to apples.

And yes, I'm suddenly seeing a lot of 31 and 32% flower lately and frankly, I don't buy into it. But the general consensus from people in the industry that I have talked to here is that test results vary within a range of perhaps 10% max. So, 32% maybe more like 27% from another lab, but still high quality flower.

Hope this is somewhat helpful.