-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Girl Scout Cookies
- Thread starter miscbrah3284
- Start date
the whole GCMS vs HPLC discussion is entirely off topic and belongs in another thread, so this is the last i'm going to say about it. at the very least, in the interest of keeping the thread hi-octane and on topic, i would suggest that if anyone wants to posit an opinion about anything off topic and/or likely to inspire a debate in this thread, they ought to have to attach at least one picture of some straight up blaze cannabis or else keep it to themselves. and on that note...
i knew next to nothing about this issue before TMB pointed it out. i like to believe that i have at least a little bit of intellectual curiosity, so even if i was a little thin-skinned about it at first, i am grateful for the opportunity to learn up on something new, and i am inclined to take the man at his word when he said he was not picking a fight.
TMB's case can be distilled down to 3 claims. taking it as a given that we are discussing smokeable/vapeable cannabis rather than edibles and other ingested forms:
1. THCa is not a psychoactive compound and should not be counted when calculating total active cannabinoid percentage.
it is true that THCa is not psychoactive. however, when you put a flame or heating element to it, THCa will decarboxylate into THC (mostly) which IS psychoactive, as well as other cannabinoids (including CBG and CBL if i'm not mistaken). furthermore, nowhere does it say that a cannabinoid need be psychoactive in order to be counted as active. CBD is a perfect example of a cannbinoid which is generally considered active, but not psychoactive. i'll concede though, it is a colorable issue. there should be more precision and uniformity of language.
2. using HPLC technique and then simply adding THCa to THC is inaccurate and provides an artificially higher total cannabinoid count when compared to GCMS.
right off the bat, I'll concede that any talk about things like "ballpark" numbers and yielding results that are "roughly the same" is definitely not research grade and therefore can be called bad science. that said, the patients and growers and collective directors who are paying for and relying upon these tests are not researchers, generally speaking. so it might be that what would be folly in the lab is actually passable for our purposes.
in any case, i wasn't able to find any information to suggest that this method would consistently or substantially inflate the total THC count though. what little i did read actually lines up with my own (very limited) experience: that SC's calculation method is pretty darned close to GCMS data. here is just one for instance…
http://www.marijuanagrowershq.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-turning-thca-into-thc/
3. HPLC is not industry standard technology. GCMS is.
here i am forced to disagree. and let's set aside the merits of one method vs. the other. it's already pretty clear to me that tthe two methods yield comparable numbers. what's more important than if/which one gives a higher test is to have one emerge as the standard so that apples are compared to apples, proverbially speaking.
while i would not argue that more distinct labs use GCMS (which is an older and more affordable technology), it matters more what share of the actual number of tests performed are based upon. it's pretty clear to me that LC takes the cake in that regard.
for one thing, in addition to SC labs (and the outfit in washington that TMB mentions), Steep Hill (out of Oakland with satellite facilities in CO) is the other juggernaut in the cannabis testing business. they also employ LC technology in their potency and terpene profile tests. between the two (or three?) of them, the market share they control is immense. i'm sure there are others out there. i just don't know who.
second, for better or worse, everyone who lists on weedmaps is obliged to rely on SC labs for their testing services. i'm not suggesting that it's fair minded or proper or otherwise right, but between them, weedmaps and SC labs have basically bullied the entire dispensary and delivery market into beating a path to their door. with that in mind, it looks like the HPLC vs GC debate may be moot. i think it's improbable that any new players that emerge on the scene will try to carve out a niche using a technology which has already effectively come and gone, regardless of whether or not it works better.
that's me done talking about it.
and here's my toll paid.
i knew next to nothing about this issue before TMB pointed it out. i like to believe that i have at least a little bit of intellectual curiosity, so even if i was a little thin-skinned about it at first, i am grateful for the opportunity to learn up on something new, and i am inclined to take the man at his word when he said he was not picking a fight.
TMB's case can be distilled down to 3 claims. taking it as a given that we are discussing smokeable/vapeable cannabis rather than edibles and other ingested forms:
1. THCa is not a psychoactive compound and should not be counted when calculating total active cannabinoid percentage.
it is true that THCa is not psychoactive. however, when you put a flame or heating element to it, THCa will decarboxylate into THC (mostly) which IS psychoactive, as well as other cannabinoids (including CBG and CBL if i'm not mistaken). furthermore, nowhere does it say that a cannabinoid need be psychoactive in order to be counted as active. CBD is a perfect example of a cannbinoid which is generally considered active, but not psychoactive. i'll concede though, it is a colorable issue. there should be more precision and uniformity of language.
2. using HPLC technique and then simply adding THCa to THC is inaccurate and provides an artificially higher total cannabinoid count when compared to GCMS.
right off the bat, I'll concede that any talk about things like "ballpark" numbers and yielding results that are "roughly the same" is definitely not research grade and therefore can be called bad science. that said, the patients and growers and collective directors who are paying for and relying upon these tests are not researchers, generally speaking. so it might be that what would be folly in the lab is actually passable for our purposes.
in any case, i wasn't able to find any information to suggest that this method would consistently or substantially inflate the total THC count though. what little i did read actually lines up with my own (very limited) experience: that SC's calculation method is pretty darned close to GCMS data. here is just one for instance…
http://www.marijuanagrowershq.com/decarboxylating-cannabis-turning-thca-into-thc/
3. HPLC is not industry standard technology. GCMS is.
here i am forced to disagree. and let's set aside the merits of one method vs. the other. it's already pretty clear to me that tthe two methods yield comparable numbers. what's more important than if/which one gives a higher test is to have one emerge as the standard so that apples are compared to apples, proverbially speaking.
while i would not argue that more distinct labs use GCMS (which is an older and more affordable technology), it matters more what share of the actual number of tests performed are based upon. it's pretty clear to me that LC takes the cake in that regard.
for one thing, in addition to SC labs (and the outfit in washington that TMB mentions), Steep Hill (out of Oakland with satellite facilities in CO) is the other juggernaut in the cannabis testing business. they also employ LC technology in their potency and terpene profile tests. between the two (or three?) of them, the market share they control is immense. i'm sure there are others out there. i just don't know who.
second, for better or worse, everyone who lists on weedmaps is obliged to rely on SC labs for their testing services. i'm not suggesting that it's fair minded or proper or otherwise right, but between them, weedmaps and SC labs have basically bullied the entire dispensary and delivery market into beating a path to their door. with that in mind, it looks like the HPLC vs GC debate may be moot. i think it's improbable that any new players that emerge on the scene will try to carve out a niche using a technology which has already effectively come and gone, regardless of whether or not it works better.
that's me done talking about it.
and here's my toll paid.
Last edited:
thanks sunset Ltd for that information which i would not have known otherwise! I have a friend who works for SC Labs and they are definitely happy about their partnership with weedmaps
And here is some straight up blaze cannabis which happens to be occupying space both in my garden and my lungs
And here is some straight up blaze cannabis which happens to be occupying space both in my garden and my lungs
anyone got pics of ghost cookies and/or animal cookies they can put up? 
I think that pic Sunset just posted is Animal crackers or cookies or whatever
thanks pappy 
Is that the forum cut?
SMOKE-ONE
Member
http://smokesignalsthebook.com/projectcbd/news/the-ring-test-oshaughnessys#sthash.yGTSSCSO.dpbs
theres the link to the published results of the study, it took a bit of digging
Lets continue this conversation over HERE
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=6168170#post6168170
Heres for the TOLL
First is forum cut in veg..
Second is...
Im not sure what this is, it came from my bro, He got it in Nor Cal and when he asked about the validity of the cut, the source said "BRO im FROM San Jose...." and acted as if he was insulted for trying to verify the pedigree...
SUUUUPPPER slow veg, not really any stretch either
sugary koolaid berry cherry grape smell so far.. temps are up in the 80's, we thought it might be "cookie monster" any guesses?
theres the link to the published results of the study, it took a bit of digging
Lets continue this conversation over HERE
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=6168170#post6168170
Heres for the TOLL
First is forum cut in veg..
Second is...
Im not sure what this is, it came from my bro, He got it in Nor Cal and when he asked about the validity of the cut, the source said "BRO im FROM San Jose...." and acted as if he was insulted for trying to verify the pedigree...
SUUUUPPPER slow veg, not really any stretch either
sugary koolaid berry cherry grape smell so far.. temps are up in the 80's, we thought it might be "cookie monster" any guesses?
That first pick does not look like my forum cut in veg? Your from cali Anne I'm in Colorado??
Attachments
looks kinda cherry pie-ish...please don't quote me on that. it's most definitely not the forum cut from what i can tell.
- forum cut made it out to ft. collins area quite sometime before it got whored out in ca. not sure what type of integrity people passing clones out in co have, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that there are less people passing along fakes in co than in ca...cali's clone scene is fucked for the most part.
- forum cut made it out to ft. collins area quite sometime before it got whored out in ca. not sure what type of integrity people passing clones out in co have, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine that there are less people passing along fakes in co than in ca...cali's clone scene is fucked for the most part.
SMOKE-ONE
Member
Yea I was about to say the same thing.That 1st pic doesn't look anything like my forum cut in veg.The leafs are too fat? And the structure of the plant is wrong.My cut came from a very reliable source.My buddy who gave me the forum cut, crossed the forum cut to a yeti og male.Im stoked to see how it turns out.Cookies dipped in gas FTW!!
hesreally420
Member
nice schrews,which gsc cut is that?
So fire man. I hope mine comes out close to that!
anyone running ghost cookies?
I have ghost og and Gsc. Sounds like something fun to play with. I understand phenotypical variations. Not trying to run too far off topic. I hope to run across that cut in the meantime!
I just obtained Animal Cookies from what I would trust as a credible source. Gave me some finished flowers, which looked very similar to everything I've seen in pics as far as cookies goes... and that was some mighty, mighty fine smoke.
Let's see some more Animal Cookies... please...
Let's see some more Animal Cookies... please...
