Validation in Cannabis Pathogen Testing: On-Site vs. In-Lab

Explore how validation impacts the reliability of on-site vs. lab-based cannabis pathogen testing and what it means for your crops.

When pathogen testing in cannabis cultivation or controlled environment agriculture (CEA), there are two primary options: on-site testing and in-lab testing. Both approaches serve the same goal—accurate pathogen detection—but they require different validation processes to ensure reliability. Understanding these differences helps cultivators make informed decisions on which testing method best suits their operational needs.

On-Site Testing vs. In-Lab Testing: Core Differences

In-lab testing takes place under controlled conditions, typically by trained scientists with access to lab equipment. On-site testing, on the other hand, is designed for cultivators and facility staff to use in the field. This key difference determines the type of validation required for each.

In-Lab Testing Validations

For in-lab tests, the validation process focuses on sensitivity, inclusivity, cross-reactivity, and accuracy, all measured under ideal conditions by skilled professionals. Since the tests are conducted by trained personnel, there is less risk of human error, and the results are expected to be highly precise. However, lab-based testing can be time-consuming and less flexible, as samples need to be sent off-site for analysis.

For more information on In-Lab Testing Validation Documents, read our blog ‘Key Components of a Validation Doc.’

Validation for On-Site Tests

On-site testing requires additional validations to ensure it performs well in a more variable, real-world setting. Since the test is performed by non-scientists in a cultivation facility, the validation must account for factors like user error, environmental conditions, and the presence of interfering substances. 

When evaluating on-site pathogen tests, cultivators should look for the metrics described above along with the following additional validations to ensure the test will work effectively in their facilities:

1. Interfering Substances

An interfering substance study evaluates whether chemicals, nutrients, or other substances used in cultivation can impact the accuracy of a pathogen test. For instance, fertilizers, fungicides, or pesticides could potentially interfere with detection, leading to skewed results. Understanding these interactions is crucial for determining the optimal timing for testing. For example, if a fungicide is known to reduce the accuracy of a specific test, you can adjust your testing schedule to avoid running tests too soon after applying treatments. Without these studies, cultivators are left guessing when and how to test their plants, potentially compromising the accuracy of results. 

The table below shows an example of some of the substances tested for interference in the TUMIGlow-HLVd assay and if those substances interfere with an accurate result.  The below example shows that the TUMIGlow_HLVd test tolerates normal amounts of coco in a collected sample, but it is ideal to minimize excessive soil or rock wool. 

2. Flexibility

Flexibility tests explore how small deviations in the testing procedure (such as incubation time or sample volume) affect the results. Since on-site pathogen testing is often done under less controlled conditions, the test needs to tolerate slight user errors without compromising accuracy.

The table below showcases a few conditions studied for the flexibility of the procedure for the TUMIGlow - HLVd Platform.

3. In-Field Accuracy

Even if a test works well in a lab, its real value lies in how it performs in the field This is where an in-field accuracy study comes into play. In-field accuracy measures how effectively non-scientists, such as cannabis growers, can use the test in their environment. So, look for validation documents that show the test has been used successfully by cultivators in their actual facilities.

A total of 807 plants produced usable results by both TUMIGlow and qPCR from the four independent cultivation facilities that participated in this study.

Why Validation Matters in Cannabis Pathogen Testing

Validation documents are critical when selecting a pathogen testing service, whether it’s on-site or in-lab. They provide cultivators with evidence that the test is accurate, reliable, and suited to the intended setting. This is especially important in cannabis cultivation, where the identification of pathogens like hop latent viroid (HLVd) can have a significant impact on yield and economic outcomes.

When choosing between on-site and in-lab testing, it's important to consider the specific validations that align with your operational needs. On-site testing requires additional focus on interference, flexibility, and in-field accuracy to ensure reliable results. Thorough validation ensures that you can trust your pathogen testing tools to help safeguard your crops from harmful pathogens.

---

About TUMI Genomics

TUMI Genomics is advancing cannabis cultivation by bringing biological insights to help commercial growers thrive. Through comprehensive preventative solutions, superior pathogen diagnostics, and AI-driven insights, TUMI Genomics is helping cultivators start clean and stay clean. The unrivaled diagnostics, transparent validation and industry-leading pathogen detection innovations provided by TUMI Genomics are raising the standards of commercial cannabis cultivation. The team at TUMI Genomics is composed of deeply experienced Ph.D. molecular biologists, bioinformaticians, business strategists, and accomplished serial entrepreneurs.

Media Contact: Hailey Spencer, Marketing Director

hailey@tumigenomics.com

Research Inquiries: Tassa Saldi, Ph.D., Co-Founder and CSO

tassa@tumigenomics.com

Sales Inquiries: Luke Horst, Sales Director

luke@tumigenomics.com