WSDA - Webinar - Preparing for Harvest
(July 12, 2022) - Summary

WSDA - Hemp Sampling
[ Event Details ]

The head of the WSDA hemp program presented the basics of hemp harvest reporting, inspections, and remediation before introducing an interim Program Manager.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday July 12th Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) webinar on “Preparing for Harvest 2022.”

My top 5 takeaways:

  • Tracking and reporting harvests was the first topic covered by Ehrlich, including on-site sampling by WSDA staff for transport to western Washington testing laboratories, a requirement before hemp producers could sell their crop (audio - 10m).
    • At publication time, a hemp production license was the only license type offered by WSDA. However, due to a 2021 law the department adopted rules for Hemp Processor Registration in December 2021 followed by rules for certification of hemp extracts on June 7th.
    • Ehrlich emphasized WSDA officials needed to know if farmers were harvesting their hemp - and how much. They also had to notify their local Farm Service Agency to provide a “planting report” that specified how much was planted. It was acceptable for licensees not to harvest any hemp, Ehrlich stated, but those who were harvesting “need to have that crop inspected” and “mature” plants had to be sampled by WSDA staff “within 30 days of your anticipated harvest date.” 
    • “A lot of people say ‘I don’t know when I’m going to harvest,’” Ehrlich noted, but “your best estimate” was needed. She remarked how department officials knew this date might “change drastically,” but they expected farmers to be communicative with staff about their eventual harvest date. Hemp licensees had to complete a “Harvest Report Form” using software from WSDA which she demonstrated from her browser. Ehrlich said the ideal notification for her team was “45 days out [from] your harvest” even though the inspection had to occur within “30 days from your harvest date.” She acknowledged that most farmers wanted inspections “as close to 30 days as possible because…the longer your hemp goes, the hotter it can become.” Speculating that a farmer harvesting on September 1st “appreciate[s] if we could be there on August 1st,” she suggested the odds of this were “much greater if you let us know on July 15th” so staff could “work our scheduling magic.”
    • In addition to mandatory delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) testing of aggregated samples selected by a state employee, crop inspections included an option to test for “non-approved pesticides, mycotoxins, and heavy metals at an additional cost,” remarked Ehrlich. It was “super crucial that when the inspector is there” they be informed that additional testing was requested. She explained that it was important to have “it written on the bag" as there “isn't really a regulatory mechanism on our end as far as what that additional testing does for you."
    • Separate from crop sampling by WSDA inspectors, hemp producers could independently mail samples to labs for testing, added Ehrlich. She allowed that they were welcome to have testing done by any of the laboratories approved for heavy metals or pesticide testing who would furnish the same certificate of analysis (COA) as the department.
    • Ehrlich knew some “have probably had some struggles with our software” and apologized for past inconvenience, but stressed that officials needed “your harvest date” above all else because “that’s how we schedule you.”
    • Josh Sturdevant, Oxbow Farm and Conservation Center (Oxbow Center) Assistant Manager for Agricultural Production, was curious whether harvest reports should be submitted “for every variety that you’re growing.” Ehrlich’s initial response was “yes and no” as varieties harvested on the same date could have details “worked out when the inspector gets there.” She didn’t want individuals to have to “fight the software" to get information submitted, but did encourage licensees to submit as much information as possible along with a harvest date. However, if the varieties of hemp had differing harvest dates, Ehrlich informed attendees that separate harvest reports would be needed for each date (audio - 3m).
  • Ehrlich then delved into hemp inspections and some challenges hemp producers might encounter around sampling, testing, and costs (audio - 11m).
    • Ehrlich’s top tip for a successful hemp inspection was for the licensee to have someone there to meet the inspector to ensure they sampled the appropriate crops, whether that was the licensee themselves or an employee they designated. She mentioned that staff were looking into “different strategies with transporting” to labs in order to minimize fuel consumption and keep sample delivery “cost effective.”
    • According to Ehrlich, “compliance samples" were required to fulfill USDA “legal obligations” and show that farmers weren’t “producing THC-heavy cannabis." She said testing covered a “full cannabinoid profile” in order to “let you know where your genetics are” even in the event the crop had too much THC. Ehrlich elaborated that licensees could have their own “marketing samples” tested at any time, as sometimes licensees “wanna see if 15 days later they’ve got a little better” ratio of cannabinoids, terpenes, and other compounds.
    • "We hate having hot hemp, it's the worst," said Ehrlich, indicating that some pre-harvest testing could also help producers know if their crop was “on its way” to an appropriate cannabinoid ratio and/or level of THC. While her staff endeavored to be “flexible” in their ability to schedule inspections, “you are not alone in experiencing the weather,” which she suggested frequently led to sudden scheduling changes by licensees in a region. The earlier a harvest report was submitted so “you’re in the system,” the lower the chances a hemp farmer would wind up “panic calling during a storm."
    • Ehrlich commented that the department “most consistently” used Medicine Creek Analytics for hemp crop testing "due to, I think mostly, their turn times and accuracy.” She felt it necessary to clarify she didn’t mean that their test results compared favorably to other accredited labs, but rather they were more accurate with names and "administrative business components" than their competitors. Should a licensee “have a strong preference for” a particular lab, it was “possible” WSDA staff could have testing conducted there, she noted, “but it couldn’t be definite.” Ehrlich acknowledged the department had not found a lab that “meets that standard of reliability” on the eastern side of Washington.
    • After testing, WSDA officials furnished a COA as well as a “THC certificate” which allowed harvested hemp to “exit your property and transport across state lines” legally, stated Ehrlich, as “just a COA is not good enough.” Following delivery of the certification documents, “we will bill you” at the end of that month, she said. While licensees weren’t charged for “drive time,” Ehrlich was clear the department charged for mileage, making timely notification to WSDA personnel a way ”to schedule you with your neighbors,” thus splitting mileage costs between producers. There were costs for harvest inspection time and testing, but the program was “fee-based” and didn’t generate revenue for the department, she noted. Ehrlich warned that WSDA could send collectors out for unpaid fees after several months. 
    • As harvest inspections involved “mature plants,” Ehrlich specified that farms producing hemp microgreens went through a "visual inspection process" often through video conferencing software done “any month you intend to sell microgreens.”
    • Ehrlich remarked that Farm Service Agencies should be notified by July 15th if licensees planted crops.
  • The last subject discussed was remediation of hemp crops with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in excess of federal limits, including recent guidance observed by WSDA staff (audio - 9m).
    • Ehrlich established that crops above 0.3% THC were considered “hot” and there were only a few options to remedy this, though “none of them are really that fun.” If a sample was under 0.5% THC, licensees “sometimes have some wiggle room" for retesting, she commented, but this incurred a new round of fees and costs for a licensee - and sometimes her team had to “tell them it's hot again.” Independent testing by the producer could be a good guide as to whether retesting their harvest would be worthwhile.
    • USDA officials only began permitting plant remediation “last year,” according to Ehrlich, and their options were “not awesome."
      • “Removing all of the flowers” and only testing “stalks and stems…no one has taken us up on that”
      • “A full mulch into a biomass” which was only allowed “at 0.7 and below” because it wasn’t the “slam dunk [that] we thought it was going to be" in addition to being “labor intensive” and often necessitating rental of a mulcher
      • Disposing of hot hemp crops was the “most popular” remedy and “always available” for any crop over 0.3% THC
      • Learn more from the WSDA Testing Protocol for Identifying Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Concentration in Hemp.
    • “Every year things get a little bit better,” Ehrlich indicated. She noted that a “decent percentage of our greenhouse folks have tested hot,” speculating that the elevated heat in greenhouses might contribute to increased THC levels in crops.
    • Bonny Jo Peterson, Industrial Hemp Association of Washington (IHEMPAWA) Executive Director, asked about creatively combining hemp lots for inspection testing, and whether it was worth it to “pay [for] the extra testing.” Ehrlich felt it “absolutely" was worth it, remarking that regulators had no ability to partition out samples when multiple varieties were combined. She clarified that requesting separate sampling by variety was the only way to avoid having officials designate combined crops “all hot” (audio - 2m).
  • As Ehrlich prepared to take maternity leave, she introduced her temporary replacement, Agricultural Commodity Inspection Supervisor Ryan Hevly (audio - 3m).
    • Ehrlich reported that her maternity leave would begin “in three weeks,” joking it was “by design” that her baby was due “right as harvest started.” Hevly would take over her duties as program manager, including responsibility for her phone and email, and expected he’d schedule inspections and likely “do a bunch of inspections himself.” She was confident licensees were being left “in good hands.”
      • Hevly acknowledged being “open” to any information licensees wanted to share and promised that staff would answer questions “the best we can.”
    • She wrapped up the event by saying she welcomed questions and that licensees should get ready to “have a great harvest” (audio - 1m).

Information Set