Ice vs Iceless Washing: A Comparative Study with the Osprey Hash Washing Machine

In our quest to push the boundaries of efficiency and quality in hash production, Lowtemp Industries in partnership with Lazercat Cannabis, conducted an in-depth study to settle an age-old debate: is ice or iceless better? The tests were performed using Sour Diesel Gobi, renowned for its uniform trichome density and widely used in bubble hash production, making it the ideal strain for this experiment. 

Don't want to read? Watch our short video instead.

Experiment Setup at Lazercat’s Lab

The experiment was structured around a series of wash cycles for each method - ice and iceless - to maintain rigorous testing standards 

Strain Used: Sour Diesel Gobi 

Amount of Flower: 17,108g of fresh frozen flower

Machine: The Osprey Commercial Hash Washing Machine

• Agitation: The agitation speed was consistently set to match across all wash cycles. The following RPMs were used:
• -1st Wash: 315 RPM
• -2nd Wash: 335 RPM
• -3rd Wash: 335 RPM
• -4th Wash: 335 RPM
• -5th Wash: 375 RPM
  
  
• Ice and Water Amount: The exact volume of ice (for ice washes) and water was precisely measured to ensure consistency.

• Temperature Control: To ensure uniform conditions, the room temperature and the wash temperature were closely monitored and maintained within a tight 2°F range. The room temperature remained between 54-56°F, and the wash mixture temperature remained between 27-29°F.

• Wash Time: Each wash was timed to exact durations, ensuring each cycle had the same opportunity for trichome separation.
• -1st Wash: 6 minutes
• -2nd Wash: 15 minutes
• -3rd Wash: 15 minutes
• -4th Wash: 15 minutes
• -5th Wash: 30 minutes

These standardized conditions were crucial in isolating the variable of ice use, providing a clear comparison between the ice vs iceless washing methods. 

Results Overview

Lazercat’s comprehensive and meticulous testing revealed several key advantages of the iceless method:

• Increased Yields: The iceless washes produced a yield increase of 1.2% compared to the ice washes, which added an additional 207.11 gram yield of bubble hash.
  
  
• Reduced Labor: The hashmaker noted that the iceless wash required less interaction with the process. There was no need for extra spraying of the material to ensure the trichome heads weren’t trapped in the ice.
  
  
• Reduced Chlorophyll Leaching: The hashmaker noted that less
  chlorophyll leached out during the iceless agitation process. The water appeared to be a lot more clean after the final wash in the iceless wash.

More Detailed Observations from Lazercat

The ice washes were found to be more labor-intensive, requiring significant effort to extract hash from ice clusters, with occasional chlorophyll contamination. On the other hand, the iceless washes allowed for smoother operation of the Osprey, with minimal manual interference and no ice-related complications. 

Conclusion 

While this study clearly supports the superiority of the iceless hash-washing method in terms of yield and operational efficiency it is important to note that we cannot guarantee that these results could be replicated with a different hash-washing machine. 

Unlike many other vessels on the market, the Osprey and its miniature aka the Mini Osprey, feature a square vessel and bottom-mounted propeller. Other machines often incorporate aggressive blades that can degrade the material, along with designs that harbor nooks and crannies that can foster mold and bacterial growth and are made with cheap components. Additionally, the Osprey is upgradable, allowing for the integration of a 300 gallon chilled water skid perfect for those who want to try iceless washing. 

For further details and comprehensive data from this experiment, please refer to the extensive test records provided by Lazercat below.