Readalots Enhanced Testing

[BigNoOne]

Thank you.

If it's not something I can reply ad hoc, email is best.

When he says “ad hoc” he really means dick pic.

 

[accidentaljedi173]

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving Brother. So coming back to this in context. There would have been no way I would have received the participation and info I got from the vendor in Project 3 if he thought I was going to disclose his name. He trusted me obviously.

My thinking is that if we want intel on the raws situation then we have to have a means to get the surveillance data. I don't want to penalize domestic brewers who have the decency to collect and share this data (see @RandallFlagg 's comments above). Pretty clear at this point that international vendors for finished oils ain't going to help (hope I am wrong).

Hence, you create a means for brewers to collect the quality data on raw materials without the fear of repercussion from customers or raws suppliers. And of course vendors will get the benefit of sharing data on their products if they disclose. If some data is suspect you've got to provide a means for the vendor to share without fear of repercussions as this thing is rolled out.

Make sense? Disagree? Feel free to tear up the whole thing. Appreciate your engagement.

After feedback received, my opinion is that surveillance data should be prioritized and let the vendors who value this set themselves apart. No requirement per se on batch testing which would penalize ethical vendors. Instead, let the vendors who endorse surveillance shine through.

If testing comes back terrible does that vendor still use them? Shouldn't we know if a vendor is using bunk raws?

 

[janoshik]

When he says “ad hoc” he really means dick pic.

You know you're a vet if you have a picture of my pride laid upon an HPLC.

 

[BigNoOne]

If testing comes back terrible does that vendor still use them? Shouldn't we know if a vendor is using bunk raws?

That’s why we push UGLs for blind testing credit so customers can send samples in to confirm results. Boom. Circle of trust.

 

[readalot]

If testing comes back terrible does that vendor still use them? Shouldn't we know if a vendor is using bunk raws?

Yes. IMO that's where GCMS becomes a useful tool when evaluating finished products in the context of raws used in their manufacture. I know we still have a ways to go with getting acceptance from the community on that option.

GCMS (in addition to HPLC) would give customers a way to audit raws used in UGL finished products if they desired.

 

[readalot]

It’s another analysis that if someone felt comfortable sending a sample to Eurofins, the lab would have no idea what the raw material was. They would just run the endotoxin analysis.

Excellent idea. I've done little to tap/leverage other potential analytical testing options. There is still a lot of work to do to qualify and standardize the endotoxin results as @Ghoul has pointed out so well. It's a great bang for the buck though as @MyNameIsJeff has stated in his thread if it's done right.

Appreciate the interest.

 

[accidentaljedi173]

That’s why we push UGLs for blind testing credit so customers can send samples in to confirm results. Boom. Circle of trust.

While I agree it's few and far between for blind testing currently.

Yes. IMO that's where GCMS becomes a useful tool when evaluating finished products in the context of raws used in their manufacture. I know we still have a ways to go with getting acceptance from the community on that option.

GCMS (in addition to HPLC) would give customers a way to audit raws used in UGL finished products if they desired.

How does any of it help if they are anonymous the entire time. I would want to know if a vendor has shit raws and that's why a blind test was off. I need to trust that a vendor is using good raws instead of brewing with shit ones. Point is I would want to know instead of playing a guessing game.

 

[readalot]

While I agree it's few and far between for blind testing currently.

How does any of it help if they are anonymous the entire time. I would want to know if a vendor has shit raws and that's why a blind test was off. I need to trust that a vendor is using good raws instead of brewing with shit ones. Point is I would want to know instead of playing a guessing game.

Given @BigNoOne 's feedback above I revise my stance. While I needed to leverage anonymity in Project 3 to get it done, his proposed method appears to be a viable one to have a workable system without using anonymity.

I appreciate @BigNoOne and @narta for their feedback that the less po po looking the system is, the better.

And you too @accidentaljedi173!

 

[readalot]

Lol. I think it’s great that the fuzzy furry gear is free of endotoxins.

I just wish it was produced to be free of the fuzzy and furry things too.

It strikes me as odd that we alleviate concern for the no-see-ems when the larger problem is literally right in front of our eyes in the form of threads bobbing around in our injectables.

I’ll have to remember to apologize to dear Tracey for insulting its poorly produced products.

Have a Happy Shillsgiving

Damn it. Now I have to start disclosing which part of the post I am "liking" lol.

 

[readalot]

safe

safer

Lol. I hope had a great Thanksgiving Brother Funk.

Your holiday message is inspiring... I look forward to the day that "Tracy" apologizes and changes behavior/QC or is run out of MESO.