Why Triploid Cannabis Seeds Are the Smartest Grow Upgrade

[Son of Hobbes]

a) So reports of buds ≥30% THC are "based on" and not actual final results from scientifically valid standardized methods and reporting?
These are claims of "potential under optimized conditions" (all sounds vague)? Should we just interpret >30% strain claims as hype indicating higher THC expected "under optimised conditions?" Should we have expectations (or not) that data reported are for real, such as follow standardized analytical methods, would pass peer/expert reviews?

Just my two cents with commercial cannabis experience:

1. Unless a breeder can produce a Certificate of Analysis (COA,) any "claims" are simply that: claims. But not verified analytically.

THC percentages on seed packaging or strain descriptions are typically based on one or more of the following:

• Anecdotal or historical reference (growers suggested it gets them incredibly stoned, etc. Think "smoke reports" on the forum here.)
• Selective phenotype testing (that one, mystical, unicorn plant (that probably nobody has still ever seen to date) that tested high (insinuating there is a COA.)
• Reference to genetic lineage (well if the parents tested high, this should test high or a similar range, etc)

A quick consumer/purchasing note: a COA does not guarantee consistent outcomes from seed (or the marketing claims on them) because:

• Lab testing is testing the product itself, not the genetics.
• Seed grown cannabis is genetically variable, even with a relatively stable line.

Not even genetic clones give consistent outcome when it comes to cannabinoid and terpene profiles. While their DNA is identical, they will not be identical in physical or behavioral characteristics, because DNA is not the only determinant of these characteristics, and those are major influencers in the development and synthesis of cannabinoids and terpenes.

2. Cannabinoid testing has not yet been standardized even in 2026. There are multiple ways to test cannabinoids, to which some methods are far more accurate than others. Some methods involve heat (Gas Chromatography vs High-Performance Liquid Chromatography for example,) which decarboxylates the product, etc.)

This makes standards for testing all OVER the place.

3. Flower is heterogeneous, meaning cannabinoid concentration varies bud-to-bud, top vs lower canopy, and with moisture content.

Labs take a small portion of the submitted sample size (called an aliquot,) and it's typically ground up to create a homogenous sample.

Potency testing can be done with a VERY small amount of flower. Commercially, that VERY, VERY SMALL sample often determines a VERY, VERY LARGE sample lot. So when you see labels at the dispensary for flower, the testing that allowed that claim came from a VERY, VERY SMALL sample for HUNDREDS OF POUNDS of weed. It's a scientific ballpark.

This is what labs do: they precisely test the cannabinoids in the SAMPLE submitted. The batch representation is an ASSUMPTION that the SAMPLE matches the batch lot.

What labs do NOT do: they do NOT guarantee the tested value of the SAMPLE applies to the entire batch, nor that indicate uniformity across the batch.

b) Are there any studies in relevant, such as analytical-related peer reviewed, publications or other reliable sources that report >30% THC buds?

Yes, actually. To my knowledge, most states that followed the Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) guidelines also post statistical data on government websites showing averages of THC content in flower, edibles, concentrates, etc. If you put your faith in COA's, this is where that data is pulled from.

When I first moved to Colorado in 2017; the average testing for flower products in Colorado was like around 19% if you want a sobering, real world example of how average potency is on a commercial scale (grown in facilities with millions of dollars with access to the latest hype clone cuts.)

Here's an example:

https://sbg.colorado.gov/sites/sbg/files/2020-Regulated-Marijuana-Market-Update-Final.pdf

c) How should we interpret Humboldt making the claim of "Avg. THC 30-34"? What this is an average of? [E.g., average of 2 highest outlier results out of dozens of test runs?]

First, understand that the seed market is an unregulated market. There aren't a lot of rules to follow when no one is enforcing the rules.

If they cannot produce a COA (which again, understanding that a COA is not infallible, is not "God" in the context of correctness, and should be taken with a modest grain of salt,) you can defer to either A) anecdotal inference (see above) or B) marketing normalization.

What I mean by "marketing normalization" is that in the unregulated seed markets, THC % has become a quick comparison "marketing shorthand," not a laboratory-backed specification. Numbers like “25–30% THC” are often aspirational ceilings, not averages. You can actually find this same type of marketing at some dispensaries, where flower products are listed with a range/ceiling, instead of a single static number. Sometimes you'll even see a disclaimer for margin of error represented in testing.

d) Regarding "mostly comes down to how those THC figures should be interpreted," how can we, consumers, do that at all? Particularly where such high results are reported, there should be some basic info. available somewhere with the lab's or breeder's conclusions/interpretations; an abstract/summary of methods, results and conclusions; some marketing pieces/Web pages have relevant footnotes; etc.

1. Educate yourself on how testing even works, the fallacies of testing, how lab shopping works (if you don't like the results of company A, use company B,) and what regulatory guidelines (if any) even exist to protect you as a consumer against claims like this (short answer, there are none.)

2. Request COA's from the breeder. If they refuse to provide that information, ask yourself "why would they do that?"

If they don't have that information (which is normal/common in my experience,) that's not necessarily a sign if bad breeding, but it does beg the question "well how did we arrive at these numbers then?"

3. Use websites like this where you can at least infer (albeit anecdotally) the experiences that other growers are having with the plant. While it won't satisfy your analytical itch, at the very least hearing about potential consistency in terpenes present and general feelings on consumption may provide indicators to whether it's the plant for you or not. It's better than guessing, but a far cry from scientific.

 

[Drownomatic]

Just my two cents with commercial cannabis experience:

1. Unless a breeder can produce a Certificate of Analysis (COA,) any "claims" are simply that: claims. But not verified analytically.

THC percentages on seed packaging or strain descriptions are typically based on one or more of the following:

• Anecdotal or historical reference (growers suggested it gets them incredibly stoned, etc. Think "smoke reports" on the forum here.)
• Selective phenotype testing (that one, mystical, unicorn plant (that probably nobody has still ever seen to date) that tested high (insinuating there is a COA.)
• Reference to genetic lineage (well if the parents tested high, this should test high or a similar range, etc)

A quick consumer/purchasing note: a COA does not guarantee consistent outcomes from seed (or the marketing claims on them) because:

• Lab testing is testing the product itself, not the genetics.
• Seed grown cannabis is genetically variable, even with a relatively stable line.

Not even genetic clones give consistent outcome when it comes to cannabinoid and terpene profiles. While their DNA is identical, they will not be identical in physical or behavioral characteristics, because DNA is not the only determinant of these characteristics, and those are major influencers in the development and synthesis of cannabinoids and terpenes.

2. Cannabinoid testing has not yet been standardized even in 2026. There are multiple ways to test cannabinoids, to which some methods are far more accurate than others. Some methods involve heat (Gas Chromatography vs High-Performance Liquid Chromatography for example,) which decarboxylates the product, etc.)

This makes standards for testing all OVER the place.

3. Flower is heterogeneous, meaning cannabinoid concentration varies bud-to-bud, top vs lower canopy, and with moisture content.

Labs take a small portion of the submitted sample size (called an aliquot,) and it's typically ground up to create a homogenous sample.

Potency testing can be done with a VERY small amount of flower. Commercially, that VERY, VERY SMALL sample often determines a VERY, VERY LARGE sample lot. So when you see labels at the dispensary for flower, the testing that allowed that claim came from a VERY, VERY SMALL sample for HUNDREDS OF POUNDS of weed. It's a scientific ballpark.

This is what labs do: they precisely test the cannabinoids in the SAMPLE submitted. The batch representation is an ASSUMPTION that the SAMPLE matches the batch lot.

What labs do NOT do: they do NOT guarantee the tested value of the SAMPLE applies to the entire batch, nor that indicate uniformity across the batch.



Yes, actually. To my knowledge, most states that followed the Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) guidelines also post statistical data on government websites showing averages of THC content in flower, edibles, concentrates, etc. If you put your faith in COA's, this is where that data is pulled from.

When I first moved to Colorado in 2017; the average testing for flower products in Colorado was like around 19% if you want a sobering, real world example of how average potency is on a commercial scale (grown in facilities with millions of dollars with access to the latest hype clone cuts.)

Here's an example:

https://sbg.colorado.gov/sites/sbg/files/2020-Regulated-Marijuana-Market-Update-Final.pdf

First, understand that the seed market is an unregulated market. There aren't a lot of rules to follow when no one is enforcing the rules.

If they cannot produce a COA (which again, understanding that a COA is not infallible, is not "God" in the context of correctness, and should be taken with a modest grain of salt,) you can defer to either A) anecdotal inference (see above) or B) marketing normalization.

What I mean by "marketing normalization" is that in the unregulated seed markets, THC % has become a quick comparison "marketing shorthand," not a laboratory-backed specification. Numbers like “25–30% THC” are often aspirational ceilings, not averages. You can actually find this same type of marketing at some dispensaries, where flower products are listed with a range/ceiling, instead of a single static number. Sometimes you'll even see a disclaimer for margin of error represented in testing.



1. Educate yourself on how testing even works, the fallacies of testing, how lab shopping works (if you don't like the results of company A, use company B,) and what regulatory guidelines (if any) even exist to protect you as a consumer against claims like this (short answer, there are none.)

2. Request COA's from the breeder. If they refuse to provide that information, ask yourself "why would they do that?"

If they don't have that information (which is normal/common in my experience,) that's not necessarily a sign if bad breeding, but it does beg the question "well how did we arrive at these numbers then?"

3. Use websites like this where you can at least infer (albeit anecdotally) the experiences that other growers are having with the plant. While it won't satisfy your analytical itch, at the very least hearing about potential consistency in terpenes present and general feelings on consumption may provide indicators to whether it's the plant for you or not. It's better than guessing, but a far cry from scientific.

How much have you seen results vary on repeated testing of clones from the same mother?

How much is the spread?

 

[Son of Hobbes]

How much have you seen results vary on repeated testing of clones from the same mother?

How much is the spread?

Testing is usually only done at harvest time; it's expensive, but required. Most facilities find their "base set" of genetics to run, then dial-in from there (it's expensive to bring in something you aren't sure how it's going to produce.)

Personal experience:

For genetics freshly introduced to a farm, generally a wide variation compared to what the COA reads.

I have seen several large purchase orders funded for genetics based on the THC percentage alone. Then the first crop gets grown and the owner (often not a grower, but a financier) goes "well how come they aren't testing above 30%" when they come back testing in the upper teens.

"Well Karen, that's just not how it works."

For genetics consistently grown in the same facility (indoors,) much less variability (but less consistent to the COA claim and more consistent to it's own production quality, if that makes sense?) Not consistent to what the label says or the breeder says, but to what the facility can produce consistently on average with the quality of equipment, labor, and environment. If the plants are grown consistently well, you're likely going to see consistent results and averages. You'll see the difference on a bad harvest, for sure!

Outdoors, you're at the mercy of mother nature.

There are only so many clone companies in Colorado for example; where multiple farms may get the same cuts as any other farm getting those same cuts. Then you go into a dispensary in City A and see those genetics in a jar and the buds look absolutely amazing. Go into Small Town B now, and you're seeing the same genetics grown by another facility on the shelf, and the buds look like fucking garbage. Or have no smell or taste.

Same genetics. Quite likely the same cuts. Grown in two different places producing two wildly different qualities.

 

[BII]

Testing is usually only done at harvest time; it's expensive, but required. Most facilities find their "base set" of genetics to run, then dial-in from there (it's expensive to bring in something you aren't sure how it's going to produce.)

Personal experience:

For genetics freshly introduced to a farm, generally a wide variation compared to what the COA reads.

I have seen several large purchase orders funded for genetics based on the THC percentage alone. Then the first crop gets grown and the owner (often not a grower, but a financier) goes "well how come they aren't testing above 30%" when they come back testing in the upper teens.

"Well Karen, that's just not how it works."

For genetics consistently grown in the same facility (indoors,) much less variability (but less consistent to the COA claim and more consistent to it's own production quality, if that makes sense?) Not consistent to what the label says or the breeder says, but to what the facility can produce consistently on average with the quality of equipment, labor, and environment. If the plants are grown consistently well, you're likely going to see consistent results and averages. You'll see the difference on a bad harvest, for sure!

Outdoors, you're at the mercy of mother nature.

There are only so many clone companies in Colorado for example; where multiple farms may get the same cuts as any other farm getting those same cuts. Then you go into a dispensary in City A and see those genetics in a jar and the buds look absolutely amazing. Go into Small Town B now, and you're seeing the same genetics grown by another facility on the shelf, and the buds look like fucking garbage. Or have no smell or taste.

Same genetics. Quite likely the same cuts. Grown in two different places producing two wildly different qualities.

It seems very hard, likely impossible, to cherry-pick a higher THC concentration sample from a batch of oil, shatter, butter, etc. So other than the analytic testing often being skewed higher by the lab., are reported concentrate dispensary THC concentrations more real, useful for comparisons; or as with buds, are these data largely meaningless?