People swear that organically grown tastes better than inorganically grown but in double blind taste tests they have found people can't accurately taste any difference - some say the inorganically grown tastes better, some say the organically grown tastes better and some say they can't taste any difference. I think what needs to be done is scientific double blinds on flushed and unflushed and only then can we get an accurate picture of whether there is any difference re taste.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth!
- Thread starter CannaRed
- Start date
People swear that organically grown tastes better than inorganically grown but in double blind taste tests they have found people can't accurately taste any difference - some say the inorganically grown tastes better, some say the organically grown tastes better and some say they can't taste any difference. I think what needs to be done is scientific double blinds on flushed and unflushed and only then can we get an accurate picture of whether there is any difference re taste.
I'm organic soil. I don't flush. It'd be impossible. My nutrients are chemically bound within the soil via high CEC and proper balance between cations, anions and free hydrogen and oxygen.
That aside, I don't try to finish a plant that hasn't entered senescence in the first place.
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/69/4/715/4851198
So, no, those nutrients, don't - "go to the buds" - THAT sort of talk is your "stoner science" for you. Assuming the plant places as much value on it's flower as YOU do...fallacy, sir.
They are used to break down chloroplasts in the cell tissues which is what allows for the color change you see in leaves in the fall. These signals, are controlled from within the plant itself in combination with the environment it is exposed to.
dank.Frank
That aside, I don't try to finish a plant that hasn't entered senescence in the first place.
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/69/4/715/4851198
So, no, those nutrients, don't - "go to the buds" - THAT sort of talk is your "stoner science" for you. Assuming the plant places as much value on it's flower as YOU do...fallacy, sir.
They are used to break down chloroplasts in the cell tissues which is what allows for the color change you see in leaves in the fall. These signals, are controlled from within the plant itself in combination with the environment it is exposed to.
dank.Frank
Last edited:
Double blind would be useless in this scenario because - what about cigarette smokers? Am I supposed to assume their ability to taste is equal to that of a non-tobacco smoker?
C'mon. That statement it's is so bias it can't be taken seriously.
You do realize that people have different taste buds and different distributions of those taste buds? Have you ever heard of SUPER tasters? You realize how we taste things is in fact tied to genetic markers?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-genetics-of-taste-88797110/
A double blind where you have zero control of the individuals ability to taste, only proves that people taste things differently. I taste a difference. That's precisely why I grow in a fully amended organic soil, water only. It's not some plot to save humanity.
dank.Frank
There are mobile elements and they absolutely do get used and depleted from the plants leaves, ie the reserves, if it can't get the nutrition from the roots. That's not even remotely debatable. It's called translocation.
I'll keep doing exactly what I do. Nothing but water 100% of the growing cycle.
dank.Frank
G `day DF
We smoke flowers not leaves .
Thanks for sharin
EB .
And yet this is the way science does things
Not bias - my only bias is towards science and away from stoner talk 
Oh and read my post about taste being subjective and everyones taste buds are different - hence double blinds with a large cohort... Otherwise its just hippy dribble and Flat Earther stuff... You really aren't selling your opinions too well.
And yet you're the one not re-enforcing your opinion with studies and data to counter and continue the CONVERSATION.
Instead, you're going to act like an impotent child and try to make this some stupid petty back and forth nonsense.
Pathetic.
Contribute meaningful content that furthers the conversation or don't quote me and waste my time. Don't associate my posts with drivel.
dank.Frank
Instead, you're going to act like an impotent child and try to make this some stupid petty back and forth nonsense.
Pathetic.
Contribute meaningful content that furthers the conversation or don't quote me and waste my time. Don't associate my posts with drivel.
dank.Frank
Well no Frank you are the one denying science - you posted a study that you clearly don't understand to support your flawed opinions. BTW - science is never an opinion. Science might begin with an opinion (hypothesis) and then this hypothesis is tested and a conclusion drawn. You of course understand what source sink relations and the nitrogen cycle are don't you??? So the leaves are sources and the fruit (or in this case buds) are sinks. Under nutrient starved conditions the sinks draw on the sources to provide mineral nutrition. For example, it is well know that under nutrient starved conditions N is mobilized from the mature leaves to younger growing tips and leaves along with developing fruit (i.e. Using stable isotope labeling, it has been shown that N is remobilized from senescing leaves to expanding leaves at the vegetative stage as well as to seeds during the reproductive stage in Arabidopsis thaliana and in Brassica napus (Malagoli et al., 2005; Diaz et al., 2008; Masclaux-Daubresse et al., 2010). - re your point about translocation and my point that translocation actually defeats the purpose associated to flushing due to nutrients going to where they are most needed (i.e. the bud). So some reads for you on source sink relations and the N cycle and nutrient translocation from leaves to fruit
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429656/
Note: On the other hand, phosphorus remobilization has been less well-described in the literature. In wheat, remobilization of P accounted for 56–63% of the grain P content (Masoni et al., 2007). In P-deficient wheat, around 58–90% of P in the grain could be attributed to retranslocated P (Batten et al., 1986), whereas the proportion was substantially lower (up to 21% P) when the roots were continuously well-supplied with P.
https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/7/1/4/htm
There is a substantial body of literature describing the N uptake and internal cycling of N in deciduous fruit trees, but less information is available for evergreen trees [10,26,27]. In evergreen trees (e.g., citrus), leaves are an important additional sink of N during the winter [10,26,28]. Similarly to deciduous trees, remobilisation of internal N reserves in evergreen trees are crucial for optimal shoot growth, flowering, and fruit set since bud break occurs when conditions (end on winter) are not always optimal for root N uptake [10,26,29,30]. Once N is absorbed by roots or remobilised from storage reserves, it is allocated to the organs that are developing according to their needs. Shoots, followed by fruits are the main N sinks in orange trees, whose uptake rates in Mediterranean districts in the Northern hemisphere is rather constant from April to November, but relatively less N is partitioned to fruits when the fertilizer N is supplied late in the season [28].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429656/
Note: On the other hand, phosphorus remobilization has been less well-described in the literature. In wheat, remobilization of P accounted for 56–63% of the grain P content (Masoni et al., 2007). In P-deficient wheat, around 58–90% of P in the grain could be attributed to retranslocated P (Batten et al., 1986), whereas the proportion was substantially lower (up to 21% P) when the roots were continuously well-supplied with P.
https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/7/1/4/htm
There is a substantial body of literature describing the N uptake and internal cycling of N in deciduous fruit trees, but less information is available for evergreen trees [10,26,27]. In evergreen trees (e.g., citrus), leaves are an important additional sink of N during the winter [10,26,28]. Similarly to deciduous trees, remobilisation of internal N reserves in evergreen trees are crucial for optimal shoot growth, flowering, and fruit set since bud break occurs when conditions (end on winter) are not always optimal for root N uptake [10,26,29,30]. Once N is absorbed by roots or remobilised from storage reserves, it is allocated to the organs that are developing according to their needs. Shoots, followed by fruits are the main N sinks in orange trees, whose uptake rates in Mediterranean districts in the Northern hemisphere is rather constant from April to November, but relatively less N is partitioned to fruits when the fertilizer N is supplied late in the season [28].
What IS my opinion??? Denying science by stating I don't flush and never pull a plant before senescence?
And...I'm the one who doesn't understand.
By all means though, keep talking about pine trees.
dank.Frank
Lost in a SOG
GrassSnakeGenetics
Plants stop eating on their own in the final month. In organic alive soil they mostly just eat what they want when they want.
Flushing as a concept is retarded unless you continue pumping salts in well past when you should in which case you still should just lower your feed in final weeks instead of pumping them with nutes like some nazi super soldier and hoping the flush is going to improve things when it was the whole philosophy and understanding of biological systems in the first place that was wrong, imo.
Flushing as a concept is retarded unless you continue pumping salts in well past when you should in which case you still should just lower your feed in final weeks instead of pumping them with nutes like some nazi super soldier and hoping the flush is going to improve things when it was the whole philosophy and understanding of biological systems in the first place that was wrong, imo.
Lol I'm just glad you didn't call me an "impotent" child - BTW I think the word you were looking for is "impudent "
To quote you re your opinions ...
“Double blind would be useless in this scenario because” blah blah blah blah (yawn)
“So, no, those nutrients, don't - "go to the buds" - THAT sort of talk is your "stoner science" for you. Assuming the plant places as much value on it's flower as YOU do...fallacy, sir.”
Thanks for sharing
G
Gauss
Fair enough, but I'm not saying all that or even talking about any of that. Try it and if you don't agree with me sure I'll eat my shoes, but I shit you not.
lol did their system of flushing force false senescence to match the natural phenomenon
many inept people feed the plant and/or flush in such a manner that the nutrient stores are not effected
this trickled top down in agriculture
here is a plant with "forced" senescence for those who don't understand the concept
many inept people feed the plant and/or flush in such a manner that the nutrient stores are not effected
this trickled top down in agriculture
here is a plant with "forced" senescence for those who don't understand the concept
SuperBadGrower
Active member
Indeed, it cannot be argued that a blind trial is invalid because people have "different tastes". In that case, all the research in the world would be invalid and we can forget about finding things out, because everybody is not equal. It doesn't matter if you (think you) taste a difference. What matters is that a representative group of people of adequate size can discern a difference between 2 types of the same weed, as BongFu pointed out.
I read this paper "long ago", so from the top of my head:
I'll be the first (?) to remark that this is a flawed study? This experiment was poorly executed (just read the documentation if you don't believe me) and it has not been replicated by anyone as far as I am aware. It's rare for me to read such a clusterfuck of a paper. The main goal was not to discover the effects of flushing.
I would not be quick to jump to conclusions. Realize that a lot of the "anti-vaccination" movement is based one flawed study from the 90s
More data would be needed IMO
Of course, the stoner myth of "nutez" somehow leaving the tissue of the plant by means of flushing the medium is complete nonsense, but anybody with half a brain and some time for reading knows that already. It's pointless to argue with people who think nitrogen just flies out the plant. On the other hand, the benefits of "flushing" a medium with salt buildup where the runoff is 6 EC should also be completely obvious to anyone.
So to get a better picture of flushing calls for more chemical analyses and probably taste tests to back that up, IMO. In this study only the presence of some macronutrients is tested. It is no surprise for various reasons that there is no significant difference between treatments. (But it is nice to have it "confirmed", at least in this one small trial)
In defense of flushing practices, we can ask ourselves: is that the complete picture? Do NPK Ca and a few others account for the complete taste profile of the product? I am not a chemist but I wager that the answer is No. Are there qualitative differences between plants that have had to translocate minerals vs. plants that have been "spoon-fed"? I would be the first to admit that I haven't a fucking clue, and this sounds like the next logical avenue of research. (If a stress treatment yields 25% less but is 100% more dank, what do you want?)
Anyway, all criticism aside, cannabis research is young and you gotta start with the basics. A bunch of myths are being put to the test. Another known one is the phosphorus overfertilization.
What's funny to me is that these things actually piss some people off. Many respond with anger. Sometimes it's best to just read your literature, instead of opening a can of worms on the internet by trying to help and educate. Always an interesting discussion.
I gave someone some bud from 2 plants and told them the source was commercial. They could tell with certainty that one of them was "sprayed" (with something bad, I guess) by the structure and taste. The only thing sprayed on any of those plants was tap water, 12 weeks before harvest. Others have remarked that it must have been organic soil grown. I'll tell you you're right when you want.
I don't flush... I do give water for the last 2-1.5 weeks. Lord knows when you follow the bottled nutrients labels and don't water to runoff, you better get a hose! The first time I grew and flushed I saw 8000ppm, haha
I read this paper "long ago", so from the top of my head:
I'll be the first (?) to remark that this is a flawed study? This experiment was poorly executed (just read the documentation if you don't believe me) and it has not been replicated by anyone as far as I am aware. It's rare for me to read such a clusterfuck of a paper. The main goal was not to discover the effects of flushing.
I would not be quick to jump to conclusions. Realize that a lot of the "anti-vaccination" movement is based one flawed study from the 90s
More data would be needed IMO
Of course, the stoner myth of "nutez" somehow leaving the tissue of the plant by means of flushing the medium is complete nonsense, but anybody with half a brain and some time for reading knows that already. It's pointless to argue with people who think nitrogen just flies out the plant. On the other hand, the benefits of "flushing" a medium with salt buildup where the runoff is 6 EC should also be completely obvious to anyone.
So to get a better picture of flushing calls for more chemical analyses and probably taste tests to back that up, IMO. In this study only the presence of some macronutrients is tested. It is no surprise for various reasons that there is no significant difference between treatments. (But it is nice to have it "confirmed", at least in this one small trial)
In defense of flushing practices, we can ask ourselves: is that the complete picture? Do NPK Ca and a few others account for the complete taste profile of the product? I am not a chemist but I wager that the answer is No. Are there qualitative differences between plants that have had to translocate minerals vs. plants that have been "spoon-fed"? I would be the first to admit that I haven't a fucking clue, and this sounds like the next logical avenue of research. (If a stress treatment yields 25% less but is 100% more dank, what do you want?)
Anyway, all criticism aside, cannabis research is young and you gotta start with the basics. A bunch of myths are being put to the test. Another known one is the phosphorus overfertilization.
What's funny to me is that these things actually piss some people off. Many respond with anger. Sometimes it's best to just read your literature, instead of opening a can of worms on the internet by trying to help and educate. Always an interesting discussion.
I gave someone some bud from 2 plants and told them the source was commercial. They could tell with certainty that one of them was "sprayed" (with something bad, I guess) by the structure and taste. The only thing sprayed on any of those plants was tap water, 12 weeks before harvest. Others have remarked that it must have been organic soil grown. I'll tell you you're right when you want.
I don't flush... I do give water for the last 2-1.5 weeks. Lord knows when you follow the bottled nutrients labels and don't water to runoff, you better get a hose! The first time I grew and flushed I saw 8000ppm, haha
F.U.C.K. the troll. I'd smoke it with you, Weird. 
@Superbadgrower - Thank you. I wasn't about to explain the difference between a graduate thesis and a peer reviewed, published article. But hey - if I say enough sciencey things I'll sound correct, isn't that how it works.
dank.Frank
@Superbadgrower - Thank you. I wasn't about to explain the difference between a graduate thesis and a peer reviewed, published article. But hey - if I say enough sciencey things I'll sound correct, isn't that how it works.
dank.Frank
Douglas.Curtis
Autistic Diplomat in Training
Just one of many points of confusion in the cannabis world. Ty prohibition efforts!!
I find the use of the word 'bud' in a 'scientific' paper to be cute.
I would like to know the accuracy represented by this statement:
thepaper said:
In my opinion, there is a definite (though very slight) difference in quality between my faded cannabis, and my faded cannabis with a 5 day flush. (hydro) Nobody else notices the difference.
Are their instruments less sensitive than my palate? Or is it the soil and nutrients they (over?)used? lol
Indeed, it cannot be argued that a blind trial is invalid because people have "different tastes". In that case, all the research in the world would be invalid and we can forget about finding things out, because everybody is not equal. It doesn't matter if you (think you) taste a difference. What matters is that a representative group of people of adequate size can discern a difference between 2 types of the same weed, as BongFu pointed out.
I read this paper "long ago", so from the top of my head:
I'll be the first (?) to remark that this is a flawed study? This experiment was poorly executed (just read the documentation if you don't believe me) and it has not been replicated by anyone as far as I am aware. It's rare for me to read such a clusterfuck of a paper. The main goal was not to discover the effects of flushing.
I would not be quick to jump to conclusions. Realize that a lot of the "anti-vaccination" movement is based one flawed study from the 90s
More data would be needed IMO
Of course, the stoner myth of "nutez" somehow leaving the tissue of the plant by means of flushing the medium is complete nonsense, but anybody with half a brain and some time for reading knows that already. It's pointless to argue with people who think nitrogen just flies out the plant. On the other hand, the benefits of "flushing" a medium with salt buildup where the runoff is 6 EC should also be completely obvious to anyone.
So to get a better picture of flushing calls for more chemical analyses and probably taste tests to back that up, IMO. In this study only the presence of some macronutrients is tested. It is no surprise for various reasons that there is no significant difference between treatments. (But it is nice to have it "confirmed", at least in this one small trial)
In defense of flushing practices, we can ask ourselves: is that the complete picture? Do NPK Ca and a few others account for the complete taste profile of the product? I am not a chemist but I wager that the answer is No. Are there qualitative differences between plants that have had to translocate minerals vs. plants that have been "spoon-fed"? I would be the first to admit that I haven't a fucking clue, and this sounds like the next logical avenue of research. (If a stress treatment yields 25% less but is 100% more dank, what do you want?)
Anyway, all criticism aside, cannabis research is young and you gotta start with the basics. A bunch of myths are being put to the test. Another known one is the phosphorus overfertilization.
What's funny to me is that these things actually piss some people off. Many respond with anger. Sometimes it's best to just read your literature, instead of opening a can of worms on the internet by trying to help and educate. Always an interesting discussion.
I gave someone some bud from 2 plants and told them the source was commercial. They could tell with certainty that one of them was "sprayed" (with something bad, I guess) by the structure and taste. The only thing sprayed on any of those plants was tap water, 12 weeks before harvest. Others have remarked that it must have been organic soil grown. I'll tell you you're right when you want.
I don't flush... I do give water for the last 2-1.5 weeks. Lord knows when you follow the bottled nutrients labels and don't water to runoff, you better get a hose! The first time I grew and flushed I saw 8000ppm, haha
Nice to see a well thought out and informed post. I agree with most things you say here - namely, you always need to consider the parameters of a study and think critically about the findings.
Where inorganic nutrient ions are concerned being "flushed" due to feeding only water for 14 or so days - it's plant science 101 to determine this argument/myth is highly flawed; however, the parameters of this study were far too narrow in that while they considered inorganic nutrients in the plant tissue they failed to look at what potentially could be happening at an organic level re carbohydrates/sugars, chlorophyll etc. It, was though a good start in the metanarrative.
SuperBadGrower
Active member
Put simply, ANOVA is a statistical method that can be used compare groups and find out whether the differences between are real. When you talk about a significant difference, that basically means that there was a <5% chance that the difference is based on chance. (This is the p-value, something may said to be significant when p = <0.05)
So, things can be different, but not significantly different. However, to say "there is a difference, it's just not significant!" is definitely not accepted.
In some fields p-values of <0.05 are handled, but this is not the case everywhere. p=0.05 is still a 1 in 20 chance that the result is random.
It's not so much about their instruments and measurements, which seem to be sound. In this case it is about what is being measured. Here, they measured N, P, K, Ca, Mg, some other shit. Those macronutrients are just scratching the surface of what is in there.
If anything, you can see this as preliminary research for others to pick up on. It always starts with the basics
edit: re-reading this it sounds kinda vague, and I'm stoned. To paraphrase that; their measurements and conclusions are Sound. To state that there is no difference between flushed and unflushed plants is would be false. A more accurate interpretation is that there is no difference between macronutrient contents of flushed and flushed plants. (i.e., those plants in this particular experiment)
Last edited:
Tony21
Member
Interesting post, can you please provide link(s) to back up your assertion that trichs count is genetically determined in the sense that strong big growth dilutes the strength of the buds and slow small growth increases the strength due to concentration of a difinitive number of trichs in a smaller arrw/volume of buds???
Comparing grapes which is a fleshy watery fruit to dried unpollinated seed pods seems a stretch.
Personally I think starving plants only reduces yield, and any effect on taste has the same influence as Thor's hammer has on lightning lol
RomulanJake
Active member
Well, this entire thread proved an interesting read.
