Tag Archives: growing

Soapbox

Human Error? No Problem

By Dr. Ginette M. Collazo
No Comments

If you are in the business of growing cannabis, you should be aware of the common reasons for production losses, how to address root causes and how to prevent future occurrences in a sustainable way. Human error is the number one root cause identified in investigations for defects in the cultivation business. Sadly, little is known about the nature of these errors, mainly because our quest for the truth ends where it should begin, once we know it was a human error or is “someone’s fault.”

Yes, human error usually explains the reason for the occurrence, but the reason for that error remains unexplained and consequently the corrective and preventive actions fail to address the underlying conditions for that failure. This, in turn, translates into ineffective action plans that result in creating non-value added activities, wasting resources and money as well as product.

Human error can occur when workers are in direct contact with the plant

So after investigating thousands of human error events and establishing systems to improve human reliability in manufacturing facilities, it became even clearer to me, the need to have good, human-engineered standard operating procedures (SOPs).

In the cannabis growing process, there are different types of mistakes that, when analyzed, all can be addressed in the same manner. For example, some common errors that we see are either overwatering or nutrient burn, which can occur when the plant is overfed. The same is true in the opposite scenario; underfeeding or under watering lead to problems as well. If your process is not automated, the reason for these failures was most likely human error. Now, why did the person make that mistake? Was there a procedure in place? Was the employee trained? Is there a specific process with steps, sub-steps, quantities and measures? Were tools available to be able to do the task correctly? There is so much that can be done about these questions if we had clear, well-written and simple, but specific instructions. The benefits greatly outweigh the effort required.

Also, besides providing step-by-step instructions to avoid commission errors (to perform incorrectly as opposed to omit some step), there are other types of errors that can be avoided with SOPs.

Decision making like detecting nutrient deficiencies can lead to human error.

Decision-making is another reason why we sometimes get different results than the ones expected. If during your process there are critical, knowledge-based decisions, workers need to be able to get all the information to detect as well as correct situations. Some decisions are, for example, when (detection) and how (steps) should I remove bud rot? Is there a critical step in the process (caution) to avoid other plants from becoming affected? Any information on the what, how, when, where and why reduces the likelihood of a decision error, later described as obvious.

When we face manufacturing challenges like nutrient deficiency in a particular stage, mold, fungus, gnats or even pollination of females, we want to do whatever we can to prevent it from happening again. So consider that from avoiding to detecting errors, procedures are a critical factor when improving human performance.

Here are some guidelines when writing procedures to prevent human error.

  1. Use them. Enforce the use of procedures at all times. As humans, we overestimate our abilities and tend to see procedures as an affront to our skills.
  2. Make sure it is a helpful procedure and users are involved in the process. People that participate in writing rules are more likely to follow them.
  3. Make sure they are available for their use.
  4. All critical activities should have a procedure.
  5. The procedure needs to be clear, have a good format, clear graphics, appropriate level of detail and specific presentation of limits.
  6. Make sure that facts, sequence and other requirements are correct and all possible conditions are considered e.g. “what if analysis”.

Human error won’t be eradicated unless we are able to really identify what is causing humans to err. If eliminating or “fixing” the actual individual eliminates or potentially reduces the probabilities of making that mistake again, then addressing the employee would be effective. But if there is a chance that the next in line will be able to make the same mistakes, consider evaluating human factors and not the human. Take a closer look and your process, system and ultimately your procedures.

Operational Inefficiencies in Commercial Cannabis Cultivation

By Drew Plebani
2 Comments

From the perspective of sustainable cannabis cultivation models, it seems clear that outside of the particular cultivation methodology adopted, that operational efficiency and the implementation of lean manufacturing principles will be necessary for successful and truly “sustainable” businesses, in the current, ever growing, cannabis space.

Implementing lean manufacturing principles as an integral part of the cannabis cultivation facility just makes sense- it is a manufacturing operation after all. From a lean perspective, doing away with the non-value-added costs in the supply chain and production model are quite important.

Let’s look at this case study as evidence for the necessity of operational efficiency:

A 300-light flowering, indoor cultivation facility in Colorado.

The system was purchased with ongoing pest/disease issues, recent updates to Colorado’s approved pesticide list, had prompted the implementation of an updated integrated pest management (IPM) program, which had been moderately successful in developing an albeit short-term solution to keeping ongoing root aphids, powdery mildew, and botrytis, to name a few, at bay.

This existing facility was producing roughly 60 pounds of trimmed cannabis per week, equivalent to almost $6M annual gross, however they were losing a percentage of their yields to product that did not pass Colorado’s contaminant testing requirements.

It is important to note that any deviation from the existing manufacturing schedule and system would create a change to the potential productivity of the system, for better or worse.

At the most basic level, one would hope that a new operator taking over an existing facility would analyze the system and implement incremental or perhaps major changes to create more efficient and profitable outcomes. That being said, currently the average grower likely doesn’t have much understanding of the lean manufacturing process. That will undoubtedly change.

When we look at basic manufacturing facility operations, on an annual gross potential basis, each daily task not completed on the existing manufacturing timeline is, at least, a 0.3% (1/365) loss in potential productivity. In monetary terms, for this particular facility, each 0.3% equates to a potential $18,000 in lost productivity.

The information that follows is taken from observations during the first week of this facility ownership transition and below is a generalized outline representing just one aspect of the operational inefficiencies (created or existing) that were observed :

  • Plant group A put into flowering 4 days behind schedule (4 days x 0.3%) =1.2%
  • Plant group B transplanted 3 days behind =0.9%
  • Plant group C transplanted 7 days behind =2.1%
  • Plant group D (clones) taken 7 days behind =2.1%
  • IPM applications not completed for 7+ days

That equals a 6.3% loss in potential annual productivity, which translates into a rough estimate of up to $378,000 in lost revenue.

Changes to the nutrient program in the midst of the plant’s life cycle had created nutrient deficient plants in all stages of vegetative and flowering growth, coupled with changes to the existing IPM program, all add to the potential losses incurred. Deviations in the plant nutrition program and IPM scheduling are hard to quantify mid-cycle, but will certainly be quantifiable when the hard numbers come home to roost.

These inefficiencies, once compounded, could potentially equal more than a 20% loss in potential productivity during the subsequent 3.5 month plant cycle. The current 60 pounds-per-week would likely be reduced for the next 2 months, down to roughly 50 pounds, or even much less, per-week. This could become a loss upwards of $500,000 in annual potential revenue in the first quarter of operation alone.

These seemingly small and incremental delays in the plant production cycle are all greatly compounded. The end result is that each subsequent cycle of plants is slightly smaller due to delays in transplanting and less days at maximized vegetative growth, etc. Undoubtedly, the cumulative effect of these operational inefficiencies creates a significant drop in the existing level of productivity, with the end result being a significant, undesired loss of revenue.

The sum of the lessons learned from this cultivation facility, is this: a sustainable operation, in the most pragmatic sense, is an efficient one both in terms of productivity and in terms of the carbon footprint and waste generated. The more streamlined and successful the operations are, the greater likelihood of success. Perhaps all of this is to say don’t forget about all the little parts that make up the whole, and strive to create a work environment/corporate culture that empowers your employees, your managers and all involved to participate and contribute to the process of improving the operations for mutual benefit.

Lessons learned from the aerospace manufacturing industry: Even the smallest zip tie on a spaceship matters! Some food for thought: If it’s truly beneficial it should stick around… If it is beneficial and it’s not sticking around, then there are limiting factors in the system that need to be addressed.

Soapbox

How Cannabis Can Positively Impact California’s Drought

By Lukian Kobzeff
2 Comments

As the drought in California persists and quickly becomes the new hydrological norm, many within the state have embraced efforts to find ways and means to live within the drought forced water “budget.” Because of the importance of water conservation, the cannabis industry should embrace its socio-ecological responsibility and seize the opportunity to help shift the perception of cannabis cultivation into that of a sustainable, high-value agricultural crop that can be grown in an environmentally safe manner, while using water efficiently.

The intersection of Prop 64, MCRSA and the drought provides the cannabis industry with a unique opportunity to positively impact water conservation. Because legal cannabis cultivators are just now designing blueprints for grow sites, these cultivators are in a position to build infrastructure and systems specifically designed to achieve permanent, sustainable water conservation.

By embracing and championing water conservation, the cannabis industry will achieve two goals: being a collaborative player in the larger community working towards sustainable water use and enhancing the overall perception of the cannabis industry in the conscious of the general public. For an industry seeking legitimacy, there is no better way to put cannabis in the mainstream conscious than by embracing environmentally responsible philosophies. Here are a few measures the cannabis industry should embrace:

Measure

The current drought has generated a state-wide conversation about tracking and recording water usage. Some commentators believe California is suffering from a water data problem. Recently passed AB 1755 is a step by California to address that shortcoming by creating a technology platform to aggregate and share water data. Cannabis cultivators should get onboard with measuring water usage. One method is to install sensitive flow meters in each drip station to precisely measure water used during each grow cycle. First, this provides the cultivator with a precise data set. Precise data sets are extremely important, especially when trying to achieve the two-part-goal of conserving water and maximizing crop yield. Second, having precise data sets allows the cultivator to determine, from harvest-to-harvest, increasingly precise ratios of input (water) to output (flower). Most likely, this input:yield ratio is subject to diminishing returns at the margin; that is, adding additional water will not proportionately increase crop yield. For instance, 50 units of water could produce 50 units of crop, but 75 units of water might only produce 55 units of crop. By measuring the input (water), the cultivator is able to identify the precise threshold where diminishing returns set in and can therefore reduce the “diminishing returns” water usage, saving money and conserving water.

Collaborate

Building on water-usage data collection, cultivators can then collaborate with each other and with water agencies. By sharing data sets, cultivators can quickly develop ideal input:yield ratios, can better understand how water usage fluctuates within each discreet grow cycle and can develop methods such as deficit irrigation and real-time soil moisture measurements. This collective industry knowledge will help each individual cultivator to reduce water-usage. In collaborating with local water boards, the boards will better understand how much water is being used and conserved by the industry. Additionally, if the boards have a more precise understanding of the expected usage per season or per specific period in a grow cycle required by cultivators in their jurisdictions, those boards can better plan for the peaks and troughs in water demand. Besides data sharing, agencies and cultivators can collaborate in developing “fill stations” (offering free, non-potable recycled water for irrigation), or help fund development of direct potable water technologies and other recycled water technologies. Collaboration amongst growers and with water boards will lead to greater water conservation.

Energy Saving

An ancillary benefit to water conservation behaviors is the reduction of energy consumption. It takes an immense amount of energy to pump and transport water to end-users, such as cultivators. Reducing water usage in turn reduces energy consumption, because less water used means less water transported and disposed of. This is one method for indoor cultivators to offset energy consumption. In addition to reducing energy usage by conserving water, cultivators can follow Irvine Ranch Water District’s example of implementing an energy storage system to reduce costs and ease energy demand during peak hours. Indoor cultivators should adopt the same basic structure and mechanics: install Tesla battery packs to store energy for use during peak hours (when electricity is more expensive) and recharge the batteries at night when demand is low (and electricity is cheaper).

Opportunities Abound

This is an exciting time in California’s history, with the pending election of Prop 64, the passage of MCRSA, and the opportunities present in the water-energy nexus. The $6 billion cannabis industry has an incredible opportunity to have a far-reaching impact on water-conservation. By being an active collaborator conserving water, the cannabis industry can position itself as a trendsetter and private sector leader in sustainable and eco-conscious methods, technologies, and processes.

Exploring Opportunities in Emerging Markets

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

This November 8th, voters in five states will head to the polls to decide on legalizing recreational cannabis and another three states have ballot initiatives that would legalize medical cannabis. If any of those five states pass a measure for recreational legalization, including Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, Arizona and California, (which are all leading in the polls) they could potentially create massive new market opportunities for cannabis brands that have their eye on expansion.

Nancy Whiteman, co-owner of Wana Brands and chair of the Cannabis Business Alliance Infused Product Committee, sees great potential in capitalizing on those markets early. Whiteman has been working with Wana Brands since 2010 in Colorado, starting out in the young medical market there.

Nancy Whiteman holding a batch of cannabis gummies
Nancy Whiteman holding a batch of cannabis gummies

After expanding to the recreational market, Wana Brands saw its sales skyrocket. From January to August 2016, Wana had the best-selling candy brand in Colorado with 21% dollar share, according to BDS Analytics. Wana Brands has already expanded to Oregon and will launch in Nevada on November 15th, with agreements signed to expand in other states as well. “The model we are pursuing is a licensing agreement where we partner with existing or new license holders in their state,” says Whiteman. “In many ways they are doing the heavy lifting, but we are providing an enormous lift by licensing our intellectual property to them.” That model for growth is becoming increasingly common in some of the more established brands, like Steep Hill Laboratories, GFarma Labs, Dixie and others. Whiteman says that Wana Brands also has a partner in Illinois, Massachusetts and a number of other states they hope to reach.

Mark Slaugh, CEO of iComply
Mark Slaugh, CEO of iComply

According to Mark Slaugh, executive director of the Cannabis Business Alliance and chief executive officer of iComply, a compliance services provider, brands from Colorado expanding to other states need to ask themselves if their reputation is on the line with these new operators. “If you are licensing to companies that are not compliant, the penalties could be huge and they vary state to state- that could potentially hurt the overall brand image nationally,” says Slaugh. “People doing the licensing that are operating with full compliance really need to look at controlling that risk and mitigating that as much as possible.” With brand trust on the line, there are substantial risks that come with expansion. “We help clients ensure quality is consistent so, for example, an edible product would taste the same in Colorado as it would in Nevada or Arizona. They need to follow the intellectual property consistently but more importantly follow those specific regulations in that state to stay afloat.” Managing ongoing compliance in different states requires monitoring regulatory updates across multiple markets, which can get incredibly complex.

rsz_unspecified-3
Processing SOPs vary widely stae to state

“Six years ago, it was much easier to get into the market in Colorado,” says Whiteman. “There were no capital requirements, no limits on the number of licenses, but there was still a lengthy application and vetting process- as long as you met those minimum requirements you could get a license.” Other new states put stringent limits on the number of licenses granted and some have extraordinarily cost-prohibitive capital requirements, up to a million dollars, as is the case for New York. “Anyone who becomes a license holder in Massachusetts has to be prepared to embark on three separate business models, which is a massive undertaking,” says Whiteman. Massachusetts requires license holders to cultivate, process and dispense in a vertically integrated model.

In other states, Wana Brands is working with exclusive partners who will have the capabilities to manufacture and distribute throughout the entire state, but in Massachusetts that won’t be the case. “To cover the state, we need several partnerships; the partner we are working with is a little south of Boston,” says Whiteman. But all that could change if voters in Massachusetts legalize it recreationally, opening a much larger market than the current medical program. “With no legislation drafted yet, the regulatory environment is still up in the air in Massachusetts so there is no way of telling what the recreational market will look like.” In terms of ongoing regulatory compliance, Whiteman believes that Colorado still has some of the most stringent rules. The universal symbol printed on every individual edible product serving is one example. “Every state has different lab testing and licensing requirements, but Colorado looks like the most stringent currently,” says Whiteman. “Colorado requires a full gamut of lab testing including homogeneity, potency, residual solvents, contaminants and soon pesticides too.” According to Mark Slaugh, Nevada’s lab testing regulations are fundamentally different from Colorado’s with regard to sampling procedures, but the broader inconsistencies in lab standards need to be addressed. “The lack of laboratory standardization state to state with regard to methods creates a big challenge to get consistent, proficient lab testing across the board,” says Slaugh.

Wana's edibles come stamped with the universal symbol (THC!)
Wana’s edibles come stamped with the universal symbol (THC!) in Colorado, as required by law.

A big differentiator between Colorado and other states is that it was a first mover. “When Colorado came online there were not any established brands to speak of anywhere in the country- we were all pioneers,” says Whiteman. “Because it is so difficult to get a license in another state, either the organization or investor groups are looking to partner with established brands.” The advantages to this business model are many. Expediting your entry to market gets you the advantage of being a first mover. Working with an established brand also minimizes risks and the learning curve. “Bigger players understand that building a brand from scratch is time consuming and expensive so I think we will see a lot of these partnerships.”

As those new states come online, similarities in their regulations might appear in the form of standard operating procedures (SOPs) or good manufacturing practices (GMPs). “We might start to see a standardization from state to state that models FDA GMPs or USDA GAPs, [good agricultural practices] moving toward a framework that is more consistent with the possibility of federal regulation,” says Slaugh. Another commonality among a number of states is the implementation of a statewide tracking system. According to Slaugh, California has no such mandated system in place yet. “They will probably have one eventually but the market is so localized there- we will see if California will be ready with a statewide compliance system for tracking by 2018,” says Slaugh. “With such a weird patchwork of local governments allowing or not allowing certain operations to exist, it is a tough business to be in and it’s getting tougher every day.”

Cannabusiness Sustainability

Packaging: Four Sustainability Principles

By Brett Giddings, Olivia L. Dubreuil, Esq.
No Comments

As with any product, packaging has a vast range of sustainability considerations that should be accounted for in its design, development and use. Often the most visible component of any product, and certainly so for most forms of cannabis products, packaging is a key sustainability issue for the entire cannabis supply chain.

What is sustainable cannabis packaging and what does it look like? This can be a loaded question, but one we can revisit after considering the basic functions of packaging.

Cannabis packaging, and packaging generally, is designed to perform three basic functions: protection, preservation and promotion. If it does not adequately address these three areas then the chance of product failure, loss of consumer trust and increased waste is likely.

Let’s take a high level look at each of these:

  • Protection: Whilst cannabis is not currently travelling huge distances, like some of the food we consume, protection is key at each point of the supply chain. Inputs into the growing process often come packaged, flowers and such are packaged for shipping and storage, bulk-packaged cannabis is sent to dispensaries, extractors, etc, and ultimately re-packed into what will become the consumer-facing packaging. Importantly for cannabis, it may require an additional level of protection to ensure children are not able to access the contents.
  • Preservation: Like any consumable item, cannabis has a shelf life, and packaging plays a key role in preserving the usability of the product. Whether it is a chocolate, a cannabis-infused drink, or flowers, it is critical that each product maintains a certain level of quality and consistency.
  • Promotion: Packaging allows one part of the supply chain to communicate specific elements of a product to those further along the supply chain. The most obvious, and for cannabis probably the most important, is the communication of contents within a packaged item (labeling), such as the percentage of CBD in a gummy or origin of a particular bud. Packaging is also the reflection of a brand, an image.

Taking these basic elements into account, we can apply a framework for designing and choosing more sustainable packaging. This framework for cannabis packaging accounts for and balances four principles: Fit for purpose, efficient, low impact and re-usable.

Fit-for-purpose. Essentially, this involves making sure that the packaging adequately performs the ‘3-Ps’ above. Packaging commonly accounts for less than 10% of the energy inputs that have gone into a complete product (for example, a candy packaged in a foil-lined plastic wrap). If the packaging fails to protect and preserve the candy, then the energy (or the water, the material, the investment) embedded in the product it contains is wasted.

The second principle relates to material efficiency. Once the packaging works, it is then important to minimize material and resource inputs. Effectively designed packaging uses lighter-weight materials and reduced numbers of materials and components. It also reduces air space and maximizes transport yields.

The third principle involves using low-impact materials. Material inputs should come from non-controversial sources, such as verified/certified supply chains and suppliers that have been assessed to ensure appropriate sustainability-related issues are addressed. Wherever possible, consider renewable and recycled-content inputs, and those made using renewable energy.

Finally, cannabis packaging should be re-usable, recoverable and/or recyclable at end of life. Consider materials and design formats that can be reused multiple times, and packaging that can be recycled and composted by consumers in the systems readily available. Linking back to the third ‘P’, Promotion can be used to make sure that your packaging clearly communicates what someone should do with your packaging. If it is recyclable, returnable, reusable or plantable, tell them it is and how to proceed.

Bear in mind that the most sustainable packaging options are often the result of thinking outside the box. The design process of your packaging should include brainstorming and researching outside of your own industry. What are new and innovative solutions, new materials, new ways to think about product conception that could negate the need for unnecessary packaging elements. New and innovative packaging solutions can raise your business’ profile, catch consumers’ attention and attract investors. It showcases your business as a forward-thinking one.

Packaging sustainability can look different for each and every cannabusiness. It is important to make sure that the four principles are part of your packaging selection/design process. As with any other sustainability issue, it is best to start thinking about packaging early on, and considering packaging as a part of the actual product system.

If you are not thinking about packaging sustainability, be assured that regulators, consumers and your industry peers are. Make sure you are driving the discussion about packaging, rather than being driven by those who may not fully understand your packaging needs.

Adam Jacques and Team Launch Sproutly, Dispensary in Eugene, Oregon

By Aaron G. Biros
2 Comments

sproutly signAdam Jacques and his team officially launched the newest arm of their business last week, Sproutly, a dispensary located in Eugene, Oregon. “This is an extension of what the Grower’s Guild Gardens does and what the Microgrower’s Guild was,” says Jacques. The Grower’s Guild Gardens, Jacques’ award-winning cultivation business, is known for their high-CBD genetics and patient-focused work, most notably with Leni Young, which helped lead to the passing of legislation in Alabama called Leni’s Law, decriminalizing the possession of cannabis oil for patients in the state.

The shelves of Sproutly boast over 75 strains of cannabis from Jacques' farm.
Sproutly’s shelves boast over 75 strains of cannabis from Jacques’ farm.

Sproutly is a medical and recreational dispensary that boasts a wide variety of high-CBD strains, a reflection of the team’s focus in the past. “We are extremely medically focused with a variety of unique CBD strains in stock,” says Jacques. “First and foremost are the patients, but entering the recreational market means we will be carrying a wider variety.” The opening of the dispensary is well timed as the team received their Tier II cultivation license, allowing them to grow cannabis up to 20,000 square feet in an outdoor space and 5,000 square feet indoor. So in addition to the handful of brands they carry, including Lunchbox Alchemy edibles, Northwest Kind and Marley Naturals, they also carry over 75 strains from their own Grower’s Guild Gardens.

Adam Jacques in front of a display shelf at Sproutly.
Adam Jacques in front of a display shelf at Sproutly.

Adam and Debra Jacques pride themselves in rigid standards for quality in sourcing, so it should be no surprise that they plan on supplying their dispensary with over 150 strains coming from more than 1,200 plants on their farm. “We really only take products from people we know and trust,” says Jacques. “That is why most of the flower in the dispensary is coming from our farm, so we know exactly what is going into it.” Jacques points to third-party certifications such as Clean Green, for other vendors to find reputable growers. “I need to know where it is coming from and that requires a personal relationship to trust the quality of their products.” The value of trust and personal relationships is also why they go through extensive training of their staff, using their own expertise for in-house training.

rsz_img_6047

The team includes Chris West, Elton Prince and John De Kluyver, all of whom have a decade or more of experience cultivating cannabis and working with patients. “We take our bud tenders through training classes, they get tested on their knowledge of products and the science of cannabinoids and terpenes and how the combinations affect people differently,” says Jacques. By leveraging that high level of in-house expertise, the team prides themselves on customer service, helping patients and customers find the right strain or product that suits them best.

In the front of the dispensary, a receptionist greets patients or customers, checking identification and showing you to a bud tender. As you walk into the retail space, you immediately notice the professionalism of the staff, taking time to personalize each customer’s experience without making him or her feel rushed. The clean aesthetics, product selection and knowledgeable staff provide for a friendly retail culture without the common ‘stoner culture’ that usually follows.

Jacques and his team will not be trading in their overalls and work boots just yet as they are inching toward harvesting their 1,200 outdoor cannabis plants soon. Grinning ear-to-ear, Jacques showed off his Tier II cultivation license on the farm, and with it came a glimpse into their exciting growth.

teganheadshot
Quality From Canada

The Devil is in the Detail – Changes to Canada’s Cannabis Regs to Encourage Patient Independence and Business Competition

By Tegan Adams, Elfi Daniel-Ivad MSc
No Comments
teganheadshot

Canada’s new ACMPR was launched late last month on August 24th. The key change that most notice is that Canadians may now again grow their own cannabis at home for medical purposes. In addition, more strict guidelines for product testing and labeling requirements for Licensed Producers (LPs) were released.health-canada-logo

Short term pain for long term gain. While the combination of allowing patients to grow at home and more strict regulations for LPs may at first seem like a business disadvantage; overtime LPs will be thankful for the combination switch. Health Canada’s new requirements encourage a leveling of the playing field globally between LPs and large scale product manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, therapeutics and natural health products. The steps Health Canada is taking to regulate our producers, is exactly what they need to get ready for mass production that will be necessary for recreational markets, scheduled for release in Spring 2017.

Picture rows of Tylenol bottles on the shelf at your favorite pharmacy. Now picture rows of cannabis bottles on the shelf beside them. This is what medical cannabis will look like in Canada perhaps as early as 2018, if not sooner. With just under forty LPs on the map and a projected sales volume of modest billions, Canada’s LPs’ eyes are widening with dollar signs as they lube up their oil production and more to see what shelves in Canada will hold.

Curious to know more? Our regulatory department manager Elfi Daniel-Ivad is an expert in regulatory change. She has worked on close to 150 submissions for cannabis licensees in Canada and beyond. Here are a few key changes from her department’s overview to better understand.

MMPR ACMPR (Updated)
No personal production or designated production available to patients (aside from that grandfathered in by MMAR). Personal production and designated production available. Patients may grow 5 indoor plants OR 2 outdoor plants at any given time per gram prescribed to them.
Licensed Producers were not required to label THC or CBD amounts in dried cannabis, though most producers did for sales and educational purposes. Oils had to be labeled with THC and CBD amounts. Licensed Producers must label their percent THC and CBD for dried and fresh cannabis products.
For the labelling of oils, the total quantity of THC, CBD and oil in a container had to be shown. Restrictions on THC allowed no more than 10mg/mL THC per capsule and no more than 30mg/mL THC per mL oil to be distributed. In addition, oil labels must now include information on “carrier” oil and allergen information. Containers must be labelled with number of capsules, the net weight and volume of each capsule. .
No reference to validation of analytical testing methods. Analytical testing must be completed using validated testing methods; confirming reliability and consistency in results for   contaminants, disintegration, residues and THC, THC-A, CBD and CBD-A
Accredited labs can only test products as received from Licensed Producers. In addition to Licensed Producers, patients growing their own or having a designated grower growing for them may also test their products at an accredited lab.

In addition to these changes, it is important to note that if an individual or company has an MMPR proposal already submitted they can now revise it to include oil production (previously, it was first dried bud only). If a company submits a new ACMPR proposal, they can include oil production on their application right away. Interested in submitting your own application? Or need help with one in the USA? Our regulatory department would be happy to answer any questions you might have about the process.

Soapbox

Learning from the Horticultural Industry at Cultivate’16

By Nic Easley
2 Comments

This past week, over 10,000 individuals traveled to Columbus, Ohio to attend Cultivate’16, a conference hosted by AmericanHort, an organization dedicated to leading and unifying the horticultural industry. Cultivate’16 had hundreds of vendors displaying the latest technology and equipment for greenhouse production, design and controls along with the latest innovations in software, manufacturing, automation and more.

For all of the energy surrounding the nascent cannabis industry, there was very little representation from it at Cultivate’16. Our associates encountered an estimated thirty cannabis industry professionals, compared to an estimated total of 10,000 attendees. This further compounds the reality that the cannabis industry is still a very young industry when compared with the more mature and well established industries such as conventional agriculture, finance, information technology and others.

At Cultivate’16, there was enormous potential for businesses in the cannabis industry to learn from the traditional horticultural industry. The horticultural industry has had to become extremely efficient with its capital, resources and time in a manner which the cannabis industry has not had to accommodate yet. There were automated container filling machines, cost effective nutrient solutions and greenhouses that are controlled wirelessly. Those were just a fraction of the products and systems that could save cannabis cultivators hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Horticulturalists have been forced through shrinking margins to increase their output and savings. The horticultural market is expanding at an average rate of 5% per year as opposed to the cannabis market which is currently growing at a rate of 68% year over year. Cannabis operators can still get anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 a pound in most legal markets on the lower end. This is in comparison to basil at $4 a pound. This difference is stark. It means that cannabis cultivators are not under the same pressure to be efficient as other traditional crop cultivators. It is clear though that with increasing legalization of cannabis in both the medical and adult use markets that the price of cannabis will fall. Therefore, it would be wise for the cannabis professionals to attend events such as Cultivate’16 in greater numbers to prepare for the eventual decrease in price.

3C Consulting was present at Cultivate’16 because we understand the importance of looking to other successful industries for guidance. We were able to converse with a diverse array of vendors and business owners to further our own knowledge on the best practices to bring to the cannabis industry. To be able to learn from those that have come before you is a strength, not a weakness. Far too often the cannabis industry seeks to reinvent the wheel. It does not have to be this way.

By learning from other industries, utilizing the latest horticultural technology and becoming more cost-effective the cannabis cultivators will be able survive and thrive. It is those that prepare for turbulence that are best able to capitalize on change. In the Chinese language, the word for crisis is the same as the word for opportunity. It is wise to prepare for a crisis so that when it does occur you are able to transform it into an opportunity.

pleabnicrop
Soapbox

Cannabis, Soil Science and Sustainability

By Drew Plebani
5 Comments
pleabnicrop

The average commercial cannabis cultivator seems to be following the modern agricultural paradigm. That model is based on questionable and, one might say, ineffective soil systems management.

In the high-yield cannabis world, amidst decades of prohibition, following the lead of the modern agricultural model has resulted in the adoption of cultural practices that go something like this: Use and destroy the soil, then dispose of it once it is rendered lifeless and useless due to repeated heavy applications of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and other poisons.

commercialcultivator
(Left) unimproved site soil next to (right) improved site soil. Notice the root mass developing on the right

Certainly conventional agricultural food production and the soil management systems underpinning them are faltering, evidenced by soil systems deteriorating many times faster than they are being improved. This qualifies as a failure in my book.

What will be the fate of profit margins, sustainability and medicine in the cannabis industry if we continue to follow blindly in the footsteps of chemical agriculture? Perhaps it is time to turn over a new leaf.

A little context for the discussion: scientists say the Earth has lost a third of arable land in the past 40 years, and some say soil erosion is the number one challenge facing the world today. Why? How?

Well…world agricultural production accounts for about three-quarters of the soil erosion worldwide. This steep decline in arable soil is occurring during a time when the world’s demand for food is rapidly increasing. It is estimated that the world will need to grow 50% more food by 2050, and it is important to note that, the total volume of food necessary, remains relative to the nutrient density of the food.

Time for a radical solution, and cannabis can lead the way.

Currently, cannabis is the most profitable crop per land area and very likely the most resource-consumptive crop grown (due to the current legal and regulatory climate and thus limited supply vs. demand).

As the cannabis industry continues to grow, now more than ever we have the opportunity, and I believe the responsibility, to cultivate in ecologically mindful ways, improve the end product and it’s positive impacts, increase both short-term and long-term profits, decrease or eliminate waste and lower the carbon footprint of cannabis cultivation operations.

commercialcultivator
A cover crop under trellis’ with cannabis plants

Most importantly, we have the opportunity to fund, implement and lead the way in research and development of sustainable, medical, phytonutrient-dense crop production methodologies.

Only by implementing more rigorous scientific methods to cannabis cultivation can we hope to provide truly meaningful improvements in and contributions to the fields of agriculture, science, medicine and human health.

While dumpsters of potting soil continue to roll off to the landfill, complex health and human science and the cultivators truly engaged in science will continue to provide meaningful data regarding plant compounds and what factors influence the best outcome for the desired end product.

commercialcultivator
The same crop pictured above, now two weeks into flowering, using cover crops

I am willing to bet that what is best will not be coming from the business models employing antiquated, wasteful and destructive cultivation strategies, and that in due time these models will fade into distant memories.

This is the first in a series of articles, in which we will explore topics related to the pursuit of high yield, phytonutrient-dense “high brix” cannabis production.

The next article will provide a historical and geologic context to the cannabis plant, as viewed from the scope of soil biology and the progression of ecosystems and soil types, and how maximized genetic expression, through maximized soil and plant health influence the production of high quality cannabis.

Building or Converting to a Greenhouse? Four Considerations for Commercial Growers

By Taylor Engert
No Comments

Successful cannabis cultivation practices leverage commercial agricultural industry practices for the most efficient and cost-effective production of the crop. Since the 1990s, the cannabis industry has cultivated primarily in indoor warehouses and outdoor farms, however the industry is experiencing a significant shift toward greenhouses.

Shelly Peterson, vice president of light product solutions at urban-gro, joined a recent panel of industry experts including Shivawn Brady, chief executive officer and founder of Seva Crop Consulting, and Karl Keich, executive director at Canna Consulting Group, at the Marijuana Business Conference in Orlando, Florida, to discuss how to transition from an indoor or outdoor grow to a greenhouse facility.

What are the considerations when deciding between a warehouse and greenhouse? The panel shares four factors around the costs and operational challenges, and the benefits of a greenhouse.

panel
The panel at the Marijuana Business Conference.

Maximize Efficiency in Every Process

Why are cannabis cultivators looking toward greenhouses? Peterson says it is all about efficiency. “In a warehouse, electricity costs can run up to 50 percent of the total cost of goods sold, which is a tremendous amount that can be decreased by switching to a greenhouse,” says Peterson. “In a greenhouse, you can add supplemental lighting to augment what the plant is receiving from the sun.”

For cultivators, Peterson noted that it is critical to ensure growers have experienced vendors and advisors on the team to help maximize the efficiency of the greenhouse. “As the cost of this product comes down, the efficient growers will be the ones in it for the long haul,” added Peterson.

Construction vs. Operating Costs

A greenhouse facility that urban-gro helped bring to operation.
A greenhouse facility that urban-gro helped bring to operation.

The panel identified upfront cost as one of the biggest challenges faced when building out a greenhouse. “The cost of retrofitting a warehouse and building a greenhouse are similar, but where you will save is in the operational costs,” says Peterson. “Lighting can be up to one third of your total cost in indoor facilities, when you switch to a greenhouse that cost can be reduced by 50 to 70 percent.”

Brady acknowledged that some traditional greenhouses have challenges in controlling the environment, but automated greenhouses offer retractable roofs and siding. “If you have the resources to invest in your greenhouse system upfront, that is generally a better way to save money in the long run,” says Brady. “Managing pests in greenhouses can also become very challenging if you don’t have the proper climate regulations.”

Lighting for Your Greenhouse

One of the greatest benefits of growing in a greenhouse is the ability to source natural light. But what about the required light levels? Peterson pointed out that light levels change throughout the year and the plants have different light needs in different stage. Supplement with a lighting system that can read the natural light levels received over any given period of time and be adjusted accordingly. “Greenhouse facilities also need to be outfitted to meet the needs of the cannabis plant, which differ in some ways from other agricultural crops,” says Peterson.

Peterson explained that every light is designed with a different purpose in mind. “There are different lights for indoor warehouse facilities where the lighting system provides 100 percent of the available light for cannabis growth versus supplemental lighting for greenhouses,” Peterson adds. “The key is to measure how much light is actually delivered by the sun on a daily basis, which changes throughout the year; at urban-gro, we supplement the facility with light fixtures that will not create shadowing during hours of sunlight and adjust to reach the optimal collective light levels.”

With LED lighting a hot button topic, Peterson explained that the most important consideration for any light fixture, whether LED or HPS, is it’s efficiency capacity. “It all depends on the budget and payback period and a lot of numbers need to be crunched,” says Peterson. “Yield is directly correlated to light; planning properly, sealing your environment, making sure you have the right target DLI, and buying good light meters, are all key.”

Make a Positive Impact and Quality Product

Brady noted that industry leaders are conscious of positive impact towards human health and environmental stewardship when moving to a greenhouse. Cultivators may find the process challenging initially, however the facilities are quite easy to operate and manage, and allow stress-free cultivation of commercial-scale crops.

Keich added that the cannabis industry is becoming more like commercial agriculture. By utilizing the correct technologies and regulators, greenhouse cultivation makes the crop smell, taste and look that much better. “Let’s use natural sunlight to minimize costs and be environmentally friendly to produce a superior product,” says Keich.

Peterson wrapped up by stressing that cultivators should evaluate the greenhouse environment and lighting to improve their bottom line. “Look at the most efficient way to lower your cost of goods sold. Lighting is a very big component to that,” she continued. “Make sure you evaluate the efficiency of the fixture and ask the questions: Why are we targeting this light level? Is the color spectrum correct? Are you measuring in micromoles per watt? These are all different questions, however figure out how much light is coming out of the fixture and verify it for yourself, and you will be successful,” says Peterson.