E9noxis
- 1,164
- 263
1diesel1
Staff
Supporter
- 10,810
- 438
It’s bullshit and a complete scam:)
Just like your local “state approved” testing labs.
mysticepipedon
- 4,738
- 263
A couple of one-hitters and you'd know all you'd need to know. And you'd have an extra $1000, whispering, "Buy those new lights you were looking at."
mysticepipedon
- 4,738
- 263
Assuming their literature can be trusted, Aside from THC, the results of CBD, CBN and the terps seem pretty shitty.
Maybe it will improve.
Maybe it will improve.
GreenHornet01
- 15
- 3
I bought a HiGrade camera that says its accurate within +/-3%, its easy enough, using an app on your phone and a magnifying adapter that slips over your phone's camera, it tests for THC under the microscope by structures it identifies, and grades up to 5 Stars based on photos taken without the scope. Just take a bud, then take 3 photos using the magnifier attachment that has a ring light built into it, and it grades the THC content. Remove the magnifier, take three more photos of the bud and it grades the quality. Lots of folks will say BS to the whole methodology but the bottom line is it gives you a reference point to compare using a common method. I think it was worth the $70 just to have a reference point, I'm getting 19% on GG, 18-19% on Skywalker OG, 16-18% on Space Queen, which are what each strain is predicted to yield, and grades of 4 or 5 Stars, free of mold, disease, etc, so I have not needed to use the grower support features offered by HiGrade.
Moe.Red
- 5,049
- 313
I hate to be "that guy" and rain on the parade, but there is no way to optically tell how much THC was in a plant. The chemistry just doesn't work that way. Even under a lab grade microscope and a trained chemist, there is simply no way to visually "count" THC.
The only real way (today) for a home grower to test with any accuracy at all is TLC - Thin Layer Chromatography.
E9noxis
- 1,164
- 263
Have you gotten them actually tested to check your results?
If it passed those tests, how would you explain the accuracy?
And what is thin layer chromatography? I'll look it up myself if you want, I'm sure it's a read. Got a link?
Moe.Red
- 5,049
- 313
By "if it passed those tests" I assume you mean comparing the output of the camera to lab testing? And what denotes "pass?"
I think the real question would be - use the camera to measure the same plant many times. Do they match?
Then use the camera to measure a CBD strain or Hemp and see the result.
I know I could certainly write an app that would spit out a number in the 15 -20% range based on ... something .... but that would quickly fail based on many different kinds of input like a bud with no THC.
TLC is where you dissolve the cannabinoids in a non-polar solvent and then run that thru a crystalline lattice of Silica and the cannabinoids move at a different speed based on the size and shape of molecule. Spray it with a dye and you will literally see the amounts of each cannabinoid, acid, etc in front of your eyes.
There are 5 videos I did in this thread explaining the process.
High THCV strains and breeding them
This is the other plate I mention in the vid, it looks like there are clearly visible bands on the bottom that I hypothesize are terpenes. I would like an expert to tell us what they are.
www.thcfarmer.com
Video 4 is probably the most interesting to someone who just wants to see the TLC process.
Last edited:
GreenHornet01
- 15
- 3
Interesting that the immediate responses all came without examining the HiGrade website that explains the science behind their product.
Optical examination does indeed tell you a lot about quality and content even if not as accurate as a destructive test like TLC. If optical examination meant nothing, then why do you look at a bag or bud before buying it, does it have seeds, stems, lots of frosty trichromes, still sticky, length of trim, big or little buds, dense or loose bud structure. Same thing with growing, you decide when to harvest by looking at it. If you define all those characteristics and put them into an algorithm and then take a magnified image (or 3 in this case) to look for the presence and number of those characteristics, its taking a much better guess than your eyeballs can and becomes an objective way to compare one to another as the ultimate answer a consumer is looking for is, which one is better than the other.
As far as accuracy, +/- 3%, is a 6% range, not exactly precise, plenty of wiggle room, so I think being inside that range just on visual examination is a reasonable marketing claim. As far as precise accuracy, TLC isn't exact either as the piece you destroy in the test can still vary from bud to bud, or even from a different side of the same bud. I am not saying TLC is bad or worse than the Higrade technology, or that the Higrade is as good as TLC, but that the Higrade technology is still an objective standard or methodology to compare one against another. The advantages of Higrade are cost (around 70 bucks), portability that lets you take it with you right to the dispensary counter, speed (less than a minute), and it doesn't destroy what you test. TLC has lots of advantages too, as it gives you all the specific chemical breakdowns so its far more quantitative and specific, albeit the drawbacks of cost and destruction of the sample.
PS I have taken multiple tests of the same bud, different buds from same plant, different plant but same strain, etc and all are pretty similiar, within 1 or 2%, but do vary. Quality of the photos' focus does effect results so that kind of supports the optical examination theory, ie ability to identify and count trichromes. Also, it does its testing and gives results before asking for the strain info, so its not just referencing a seed database. Space Queen consistently comes up about 2-3% lower than my Skywalker OG and GG that come in at 18-19%, haven't topped 20 yet, but all three are right on the estimates for those seed strains. It would be nice if I had access to a dispensary and could run a bunch of different strains and compare to their labeled contents. I only have three strains but for 70 bucks maybe one of the self proclaimed experts with more access to material to test could give it a go. If it doesn't pass your personal tests, you can always return it, get your money back and then give us some objective feedback on its shortcomings. One that they clearly disclose is it only estimates total THC content, not CBD, at least not yet.
Optical examination does indeed tell you a lot about quality and content even if not as accurate as a destructive test like TLC. If optical examination meant nothing, then why do you look at a bag or bud before buying it, does it have seeds, stems, lots of frosty trichromes, still sticky, length of trim, big or little buds, dense or loose bud structure. Same thing with growing, you decide when to harvest by looking at it. If you define all those characteristics and put them into an algorithm and then take a magnified image (or 3 in this case) to look for the presence and number of those characteristics, its taking a much better guess than your eyeballs can and becomes an objective way to compare one to another as the ultimate answer a consumer is looking for is, which one is better than the other.
As far as accuracy, +/- 3%, is a 6% range, not exactly precise, plenty of wiggle room, so I think being inside that range just on visual examination is a reasonable marketing claim. As far as precise accuracy, TLC isn't exact either as the piece you destroy in the test can still vary from bud to bud, or even from a different side of the same bud. I am not saying TLC is bad or worse than the Higrade technology, or that the Higrade is as good as TLC, but that the Higrade technology is still an objective standard or methodology to compare one against another. The advantages of Higrade are cost (around 70 bucks), portability that lets you take it with you right to the dispensary counter, speed (less than a minute), and it doesn't destroy what you test. TLC has lots of advantages too, as it gives you all the specific chemical breakdowns so its far more quantitative and specific, albeit the drawbacks of cost and destruction of the sample.
PS I have taken multiple tests of the same bud, different buds from same plant, different plant but same strain, etc and all are pretty similiar, within 1 or 2%, but do vary. Quality of the photos' focus does effect results so that kind of supports the optical examination theory, ie ability to identify and count trichromes. Also, it does its testing and gives results before asking for the strain info, so its not just referencing a seed database. Space Queen consistently comes up about 2-3% lower than my Skywalker OG and GG that come in at 18-19%, haven't topped 20 yet, but all three are right on the estimates for those seed strains. It would be nice if I had access to a dispensary and could run a bunch of different strains and compare to their labeled contents. I only have three strains but for 70 bucks maybe one of the self proclaimed experts with more access to material to test could give it a go. If it doesn't pass your personal tests, you can always return it, get your money back and then give us some objective feedback on its shortcomings. One that they clearly disclose is it only estimates total THC content, not CBD, at least not yet.
mysticepipedon
- 4,738
- 263
I've had incredibly frosty plants with low THC. I wish I had a few buds to send your way to see what the camera says, but for some weird reason, I didn't keep any cuts. These plants would win on bag appeal. They smelled great, too.
Bag appeal doesn't tell you how potent the weed is, but scent and sight is all we have if we can't inhale it. More trichs? Great! But what's in the trichs? It doesn't have to be THC.
A good test would be your camera device vs. just looking at it vs. lab tests.
Bag appeal doesn't tell you how potent the weed is, but scent and sight is all we have if we can't inhale it. More trichs? Great! But what's in the trichs? It doesn't have to be THC.
A good test would be your camera device vs. just looking at it vs. lab tests.
dreamnfox
- 1,385
- 263
I looked HI grade up, it basically says its a real good guesser. I think it would have a very hard time telling between high grade hemp and weed. Also your 80 is only good for 1 year, then you have to resubscribe.
GreenHornet01
- 15
- 3
The more testing methods, the more confusing, my point is once you have/choose a method, TLC, the Canna device, the Higrade device, or just your eyeball, its ultimately a test between one bud vs another, good vs better, and as long as it can correctly determine which has more positive attributes that correlate with a higher THC concentration, its worth the one time cost of 70 bucks for a consumer. Obviously not a product that could be used to quantify and label products for sale like lab equipment costing thousands of dollars and still highly dependent upon test methodology, knowledge level of those conducting tests and their ability to maintain consistency.
Moe.Red
- 5,049
- 313
@GreenHornet01 , what happens when you test a frosty bud like AC/DC with virtually no THC?
GreenHornet01
- 15
- 3
In my opinion, a real good guesser is worth $70 even if it can be tricked into guessing wrong, not worth hundreds or thousands of dollars to be exact
GreenHornet01
- 15
- 3
Moe.Red - I only have the 3 strains, Space Queen, GG and Skywalker OG, to test and none of them are low THC, all mid to high teens, any strain with low to no THC would be a pure waste of time and money for me. BTW, HiGrade clearly states their current algorithm doesn't support CBD testing so even they readily admit there are limitations to their science, just like the +/-3% accuracy, which is a 6 point spread on Total THC content that usually ranges in the 10-20% range. I'm sure it can be "tricked", but as a novice grower, its nice to see how I'm doing versus the strain's description for less than $100
Last edited:
Moe.Red
- 5,049
- 313
$119
Basic Cannabinoid Test Kit (20 THC Potency Tests)
The Basic Cannabinoid Test Kit is perfect for regular cannabinoid testing and THC potency control. Sufficient for up to 20 THC tests.
www.cannalyticssupply.com
Does not get fooled by no THC. Just saying.
GreenHornet01
- 15
- 3
Moe: That is True, but kind of hard to conduct that test at a dispensary counter, or at home for most novice growers/consumers, results depend heavily on the person's testing skills, consistency and knowledge, and still destroys the test material, Just saying.$119
Basic Cannabinoid Test Kit (20 THC Potency Tests)
The Basic Cannabinoid Test Kit is perfect for regular cannabinoid testing and THC potency control. Sufficient for up to 20 THC tests.
Does not get fooled by no THC. Just saying.
My intent wasn't to say this is "The" way to test, just that its one low cost, very simple and very fast way for a consumer or home grower to get a good guess, not laboratory level analysis needed by a commercial grower, dispensary, breeder, etc.
Moe.Red
- 5,049
- 313
I hear you, but I'm just not agreeing with the way you are framing the argument.
At a dispensary counter, the item is displayed with lab testing on the label.
As far as destruction - sure if you can't spare .1G for a sample, you might want to grow a little more LOL.
I just don't see the same downsides you do, and clearly cost is not the issue as these are comparable cost wise, not the thousands of dollars you quote above.
If you are happy, that's great. Not trying to pee up your leg. I simply believe that the results of TLC are FAR superior to a visual examination. It will tell you all cannabinoids, not just a guess at THC. And truthfully, it is quite fun when you get good at it. You can find the exact right harvest time. You can predict the quality of the plant before there are even buds to look at and cull as needed. You can measure things like THCv, CBG, CBN - all things that are sought after and breed for. You can do things like add UV light and measure the difference in the result, especially with the minor cannabinoids.
None of that is possible with any visual inspection.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Cheers.
Last edited:
mysticepipedon
- 4,738
- 263
I think you can probably train your eyes as well as this device is "trained."
There are a lot of things you can train yourself to do. For example, a lot of people seem to have jumped on the Boveda moisture packet bandwagon for getting ~the perfect~ moisture level for curing, when a trained nose can do it.
Moe.Red
- 5,049
- 313
I can see the camera with software potentially being a fair judge of bud formation, seeds present, PM, stuff like that. That sort of quantification could easily be a thing.
I cannot see (nor can the camera pun or something) THC being measured visually period. Full stop. If I am proven wrong I will eat the hat of your choosing.
Just far too much genetic variation these days to have any kind of database that knows high from low THC.Latest posts
-
I Cant identify my problem Please help- MrGreenfinga posted
-
A Day in my Grow-from cloned to stoned!- THCosoCHT posted
-
One click nominations- Gmix posted
