Aussie Cannabis analysis

[losthippy]

I'm curious about whether Aussie growers test their cannabis strains for % THC and CBD. I guess the query is pitched more at small-scale cultivators interested in putting some numbers behind the varieties they grow. I'm fairly sure there aren't many labs with gas chromatographs offering the service here, so how do growers know how much THC/CBD their buds are testing at? If the seed grown was selected from a catalogue it will usually come with lab results as well as genetics and growth characteristics, so there is a rough guide as to what you can expect. On the other hand, some breeders may have started out with random saved seeds way back when and ended up with murderously potent weed generations later, but lacking that key information. Anecdotal user reviews don't really cut it.

An article I read in High Times (https://hightimes.com/products/home-testing-for-thc-potency-is-a-viable-option/) compared the accuracy of 4x home test kits available in the US varying in price and ease of use. It's an interesting read and mentions why knowing THC/CBN ratios in bud is important in determining dosing rates for tinctures and other non-combustible options. When I searched what we had on offer here in Oz, surprise, surprise... dozens of detection kits and only one kit pitched at cultivators that might do the job if the website link worked. Has anyone bought an analysis kit locally or is it down to the big $ and long wait ordering from O/S?

 

[AussieJoe]

I think if ppl are buying from a seedbank that is the only information they would have.But that necessarily isnt accurate either as you are relying on the information provided....are you even getting the seed stock you ordered...etc etc.Reputable seed compay may be best.As for home growers i would think most wouldnt bother ...if it looks good tastes good and you like it and gets the desired effect is all that matters .Would most ppl want to know hmmm .Say you did get it tested and it happens to be lower than advertised and the seeds were expensive because they were primo genetic...you would feel like you have been robbed to some degree...They said 23% its 19%....lol ...maybe the test is wrong ...omg ....grow it smoke it enjoy it

 

[losthippy]

^You're right about trusting seed suppliers to deliver on what you pay for. Buying high-test strains direct from the company/breeder rather than third-party vendors is as close to a nod of authenticity as one can expect And fair enough, many home growers are probably content just getting some kind of effect off their weed without an interest in the breeding that went into it. Seems weird that users of other recreational substances give enough of a shit to test what they acquire, yet cannabis doesn't rate the same sort of interest. As a consequence, strain development here among enthusiasts and small-time growers will continue being retarded.

Out of interest, how many Aussie growers reading this would test their bud for THC/CBD if kits were available here? And in answering, maybe you could explain why or why not you'd go to the trouble. OS readers might also chime in with their experiences using DIY tests.

 

[losthippy]

^Fair comment, though its widely accepted that there will be slight deviations in test outcomes for seeds bought from a single batch if grown in different conditions or geographic locations. I haven't heard of studies using Cannabis to illustrate the point, but years ago the bird's eye chilli grown solely in southern Africa for a famous Portuguese hot sauce was produced under similar climatic conditions on the same latitude in Australia and South America. The Scoville (heat) ratings remained close but flavonoids were said to be quite different. I imagine the same could apply for Cannabis.

A look through some online seed catalogues selling common stock shows variations in the THC/CBD content for some popular strains in the range of 1-3%. Some varieties are also grown under license for breeders, so this could also account for small differences. And the HT article I mentioned showed the reviewed kits' outcomes fell within what the author termed 'acceptable' ranges (1-3%) when compared with the same samples tested using a chromatograph. TBH, I'm not sure how many punters here could actually tell the difference between 21% and 23% THC in a non-clinical setting. Might be wrong on that. I'm sure there's some fuckery happening in some seed-selling businesses, but consumers are not all so naïve these days when product potency can be measured (OS at least) at home. Most reputable seed companies happily market the numbers to be expected if you buy from them. Seems to make sense, even if the numbers sometimes seem a bit rubbery.

Meanwhile, back here in Oz we're still dealing with this arm's length approach to ownership of Cannabis we grow. There are sacks of seed out there ready for the coming season and they have no real provenance. A reputation, perhaps, if grown over many generations, or an assay if the seed was purchased commercially... maybe. Stunned or stoned, consumers don't seem to grumble much as long as something happens, and suppliers aren't going to upset a successful working model in a black market environment. If it ain't broke, etc. And somewhere in the mix are the high-end hobbyists who have become content with churning out mind-bogglingly excellent flower with all the attributes under the sun to yap about... and that's it. Being able to add a fairly accurate account of the THC/CBD would round off the conversation and line us up with the rest of the pot-growing planet.