BioTrack and METRC do the same regulatory job
BioTrack and METRC are both used by government agencies as seed-to-sale traceability systems. For a licensed cultivator, the job is to create the regulatory record of plants, inventory, harvests, packages or lots, testing, transfers, sales, waste, and other state-required events. The obligation comes from state law and agency rules. The vendor platform is how the state has chosen to operate that record. [1][8]
That distinction matters because the exact workflow is not universal. States can differ on required events, terminology, identifiers, reporting windows, permissions, manifests, API access, training, and correction procedures. A generic vendor page can explain the platform, but it cannot replace the current state SOP, rule, or agency instruction.
Neither system runs a cultivation operation. Neither decides the crop plan, manages environmental controls, schedules labor, or turns production records into a grow strategy. For the plain-English METRC overview, see What Is METRC? A Plain-English Guide for Growers. For the broader distinction between compliance and operations records, see METRC Is for the State. Growgoyle Is for You.
There is also a category error worth avoiding with BioTrack. BioTrack Government refers to government traceability deployments. BioTrack also offers commercial cultivation, inventory, POS, and related products. A commercial BioTrack product is not automatically the state-mandated portal, just as another inventory or POS product is not automatically the state system. In New York, for example, OCM says licensees may use a third-party inventory system, but it must transmit required data to the contracted traceability solution. New Mexico says it requires BioTrack for traceability, not for POS. [4][7]
BioTrack vs METRC at the operator level
| What a cultivator needs to handle | BioTrack government traceability | METRC government traceability | What to verify with the state |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plants and inventory | BioTrack describes identifiers for plants and inventory, plant phases, harvests, material-type batches, conversions, QA testing, manifests, and sales. [1][2] | METRC describes plant and package identifiers, harvests, packaging, combining, testing, transfers, and sales. It says licensees report actions that affect plant status or create cannabis products. [8] | Which objects exist in the state configuration and which events are mandatory for the license type. |
| Tags and identifiers | BioTrack describes a globally unique 16-digit identifier. New York’s prior BioTrack-NY guidance specifies digital inventory tags. [1][7] | METRC describes RFID plant and package tags in the jurisdictions it serves. [8] | Whether tags are physical or digital, when they are assigned, whether immature plants can be grouped, and package-label rules. |
| Harvest and conversion | Public materials describe new identifiers for converted material, as well as lots, sublots, QA samples, and conversions. [1][2] | METRC materials describe plant records, harvests, packages, package tags, and source and child package relationships. [8] | The state’s terms for batch, lot, package, plant group, and immature plant, plus required weights and timing. |
| Reporting route | Operators may work in the state portal or, where allowed, use a third-party system that transmits through the state’s BioTrack API. [4][7] | METRC accepts records through its web application and API. [8][9] | Reporting deadline, required fields, agency approval process, and whether a commercial system can submit on the licensee’s behalf. |
| Support and corrections | Agency guides and vendor support can both be involved. BioTrack’s published guidance shows that some corrections require a support workflow or approval. [2] | METRC correction, adjustment, void, and relationship workflows are state-defined. [8] | Who owns the issue: regulator, traceability vendor, commercial software vendor, POS, or LIMS. |
| Transfers | BioTrack describes manifests with origin, contents, destination, and driver credentials. [1] | METRC supports transport-manifest-related integrations and tracks transfer relationships. [9] | Whether a required transportation manifest is separate from the traceability entry, and the timing before movement. |
Similar terms are not automatically interchangeable across state implementations. A “batch,” “lot,” “package,” “plant group,” and “immature plant” can each carry different reporting requirements.
What the work looks like on the cultivation floor
The platform is only one part of the job. The practical work begins with the state account, user permissions, training, and security rules. From there, the operator records source plants, seeds, clones, tissue, or the equivalent state-required starting material. The operator then records status changes and applies or assigns identifiers when the state requires them.
At harvest, the recordkeeping becomes more interconnected. Weights, material type, harvest records, packages or lots, conversions, waste or destruction, samples, test results, and release status may need to stay connected. When inventory moves, the operator prepares the required transfer documentation and records the event. A system entry does not necessarily replace a legally required transport manifest. New York’s OCM explicitly says API transfer entry does not replace the transportation manifest requirement. [7]
That is why reconciliation is part of daily compliance, not an end-of-month cleanup. Physical plants and inventory, the government record, and any commercial inventory, POS, cultivation, or laboratory system need to agree. A mistake can become a support issue, an adjustment, a void, a reversal, or a request for agency approval. It is not safe to assume an event can simply be edited after the fact.
BioTrack’s Illinois FAQ provides a useful example of the limits on corrections. Its guidance states that a harvested plant cannot be unharvested through the interface and may require written approval and a technician correction. [2] The exact rule is not a national BioTrack rule. It shows why staff need to understand the correction procedure before they need it.
Tags are central, but the workflow is state-specific
Tags and identifiers are the most visible difference a new operator notices, but they are also easy to overgeneralize. BioTrack publicly describes a 16-digit identifier, while METRC describes RFID plant and package tags in its markets. [1][8] Those descriptions do not establish one uniform workflow for every state.
A state may set the point at which a plant receives an identifier, how immature plants are handled, when inventory becomes a package or lot, how many physical labels are required, and what happens when inventory is converted. The safest operating question is not “How does BioTrack do tags?” or “How does METRC do tags?” It is: “What does our state require for this inventory object, at this stage, under this license?”
That question should also be asked before buying commercial software. A system that is useful for internal records still needs the right mapping, credentials, testing, approval, and ongoing maintenance to transmit state data where an integration is permitted. An API is not proof of plug-and-play compatibility.
API access does not erase the state boundary
Both vendors publish API information. BioTrack has state-specific API documentation and support resources. METRC describes an open API for inventory, transport manifests, test results, and POS data, along with an integration process and support. [7][9]
For cultivators, “open API” should be read as an integration possibility, not a promise. The state may control credentials, endpoint versions, required fields, sandbox access, integrator registration, testing, and approvals. New York’s OCM FAQ is a clear example: it describes a sandbox and integrator portal, says vendors must register, and states that the API defines data elements by license type. [7]
Before selecting a cultivation, inventory, POS, or LIMS system, confirm these details in writing:
- Whether the state permits the system to submit required records for the license type.
- Which events, fields, and timing the integration supports.
- How plant, package, lot, harvest, and external identifiers map between systems.
- How corrections, voids, failed tests, returns, and transfers are handled.
- Who reconciles a transmission failure and who can see the error.
- Whether the vendor can export a complete, usable record if the state or software changes.
- Whether the team can train in a sandbox before a production cutover.
For a framework that separates state compliance, environmental monitoring, equipment control, team execution, and run analysis, see Cannabis Cultivation Software in 2026: What Each System Actually Does.
Which states use BioTrack? Keep the answer qualified
BioTrack’s government-solutions page displays deployments including Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Connecticut, Florida, and Puerto Rico. [1] That is a vendor-maintained deployment list, not an agency-maintained national directory. The current portal and operator requirements should be confirmed with the relevant regulator before relying on any state list.
Several agency sources provide concrete examples. Arkansas’s STEMS portal identifies itself as the BioTrack traceability system. Hawaii’s Medical Cannabis Tracking System requires daily reporting of production, transportation, and sale activity. New Mexico’s Cannabis Control Division says BioTrack is required for traceability but not POS. [5][6][4]
New York and Florida need more caution. New York OCM’s BioTrack FAQ documents the BioTrack-NY contract and integration model, while METRC announced New York implementation as the track-and-trace system of record in October 2025. Treat New York as a status-check or transition item, not as a settled BioTrack example. [7][10] BioTrack’s page lists Florida and describes the state as planning to use BioTrack, but that page alone does not establish the operational status or licensee go-live date. [1]
For the current METRC jurisdiction list, see Which States Use METRC in 2026?.
Illinois shows why migrations need a real plan
Illinois provides a documented example of what can happen when a state changes traceability platforms. The state’s seed-to-sale FAQs describe its move from BioTrack to METRC and the handling of existing inventory. BioTrack-tested products could move into METRC through an External Transfer. The BioTrack tracking number had to be retained as the METRC External ID. Existing BioTrack-labeled units generally did not need relabeling if they remained traceable and compliant, while new packages created in METRC required METRC package IDs and tags. [11][12]
The state also described a transition in which a licensee could have inventory in both systems. By the end of the transition, BioTrack packages had to be sold or converted and added to METRC. [11][12]
The lesson is not that every state conversion will work the same way. It is that a migration is an inventory, history, labeling, testing, transfer, and reconciliation project. The new screen is often the easy part.
Migration checklist for cultivators
- Preserve the record before cutover. Export source IDs, plant and package history, harvest records, COAs and test results, manifests, adjustments, and relevant agency instructions.
- Map the object model. Determine how each old plant, package, lot, harvest, sample, and conversion maps to the new state system before creating or importing records.
- Protect identifier history. Confirm which old identifiers must be retained as external IDs and which inventory requires new tags or labels.
- Reconcile physical inventory. Count plants, confirm weights, and resolve discrepancies immediately before cutover.
- Plan for work already in motion. Include plants in progress, harvests, testing, transfers, returns, waste, and active packages.
- Test connected systems. Confirm that POS, inventory, cultivation, and LIMS systems can handle dual identifiers, prevent duplicates, and surface transmission failures.
- Keep a dated transition file. Retain exports, screenshots, manifests, agency directions, and a cutover log.
- Train to the new event rules. Teach the team the new event names, tag timing, correction limits, and escalation path, not only the new interface.
Compliance system, operations system, and accountability
A traceability platform is built for regulatory visibility and chain of custody. It is not a substitute for the records and decisions that run the cultivation operation. Commercial software may help a facility organize internal inventory, POS, laboratory, environmental, task, or production workflows, but the state system remains the compliance record the licensee must answer to.
Growgoyle belongs on the operations side of that boundary. It does not manage, integrate with, or oversee METRC. It schedules and assigns compliance checks and preserves attached notes, while the state traceability system remains the system of record for required reporting. METRC tracks your grow for the state. Growgoyle tracks it for you.
The durable approach is straightforward: comply with the state system as it is configured today, reconcile it to physical inventory, and choose internal software based on the work it actually does. Verify integrations, tags, reporting windows, corrections, exports, and support ownership with the agency and vendors before treating a feature page as a compliance plan.
References
- BioTrack, Government Traceability Solutions.
- BioTrack, Frequently Asked Questions.
- BioTrack, New Mexico Compliance and Traceability.
- New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department, BioTrack Resources.
- Arkansas state traceability portal, STEMS.
- Hawaii Department of Health, Medical Cannabis Tracking System.
- New York Office of Cannabis Management, BioTrack THC Electronic Inventory Tracking FAQ.
- METRC, Track and Trace Technology.
- METRC, Open API.
- METRC, New York Implementation Announcement.
- Illinois Department of Agriculture and Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office, METRC Seed-to-Sale Solution.
- Illinois Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office, Seed-to-Sale FAQ Index.
- METRC, Illinois Beginning Inventory Guide.
Leave a Reply