-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth!
- Thread starter CannaRed
- Start date
Imagine being such a sucker for one university labelled study that one throws out the whole of plant science with that adoration
they did not use several baselines known for replicating senescence and then working with an average nor did they did not replicate and measure natural senescence as a basis
https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...scence effect on leaf mineral stores&f=false
Nutrient remobilization during leaf senescence
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2015.00317/full
Leaf mineral nutrient remobilization during leaf senescence and modulation by nutrient deficiency
another 17,000 articles on the topic
they did not use several baselines known for replicating senescence and then working with an average nor did they did not replicate and measure natural senescence as a basis
https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...scence effect on leaf mineral stores&f=false
Nutrient remobilization during leaf senescence
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2015.00317/full
Leaf mineral nutrient remobilization during leaf senescence and modulation by nutrient deficiency
another 17,000 articles on the topic
Somatek
Active member
So you think making assumptions based off of experiments with other plants is more reliable then a study based on cannabis specifically?
Isn't it possible to acknowledge that the limits of the study mean both could be right; flushing may not lower nutrient content in the bud but may still increase people's subjective enjoyment of it as the study didn't look at that aspect at all. It does say that yields weren't significantly affected, in the sections looking at irrigation strategies they suggest that limiting water may increase overall cannabinoid concentrations.
I think the take away from this paper is that we base a lot of our techniques on unconfirmed assumptions and we need more studies to build a solid body of evidence around actual best practices for growing Ganga.
No I know from over 25 years of cultivation and working with the same cuts for decades at a clip and running them through all varieties of methodologies.
Plants will fade on their own without flushing... if your NPK is balanced right... u can feed them right up until harvest and they will shit on plants given plain water.. all the sides by sides ive done... show flushing is the biggest bro science myth legend alive
You are proving my point about ignorance in plant expression, nutrient mobilization and sentience.
weird...show us pics of modern genetics you've killed it on ??? Id like to see how your skill set translates into real world...Ive seen your work....its not much to write home about or even tik tok...ya heard??
The plant has to remove stored excess reserves from its tissue
Weed is not a toilet...busting gallons no food in 4 days before harvest is NOTdoing a damn bit of good..
2 weeks before harvest drop the add ons.... except flower base cut it in half, add sugars and fulvic humeric done right will make the plant eat those reserves then start color changing in the leaves because its starving removing stored excess....flush yer turds not yer plants....science confirms this if your not emotional attached to hacks....
Weed is not a toilet...busting gallons no food in 4 days before harvest is NOTdoing a damn bit of good..
2 weeks before harvest drop the add ons.... except flower base cut it in half, add sugars and fulvic humeric done right will make the plant eat those reserves then start color changing in the leaves because its starving removing stored excess....flush yer turds not yer plants....science confirms this if your not emotional attached to hacks....
Flushing (the act of putting at least 3x the volume of water through a root zone to remediate issues) won't trigger senescence it is a myth perpetuated by pot growers and only since the internet (this medium magnifies stupidity).
Thus the people who conflate flushing with trigger sentience are simply idiots including the people who did that study. They were playing myth busters not mapping translocation of minerals based on several key elements.
The tell of the tale here is no leaf sample tests on plants that experience senescent in a natural environment. An environment where ionic availability of nutrients is controlled by rhizosphere interactions.
Once the base line for natural mineral leaf compositions (across several land race and modern cultivars) are established then there can be comparisons across growing methods with and without measured senescence but also at varying degrees of nutrient inputs.
Also another important note. Legalization is not federal so science has not put much real effort into mineral stores and the relationship to combustion and human smoking. Science has been given billions to understand this succinctly to create an identical experience in a cigarette. Mineral content in all combustible items effects the constituents of the smoke and it has also been studied for the purpose of air pollutants.
None of this has been established by science for cannabis through testing but if one where to research this across botany certain common denominators such as mineral content and effect on combustion have been established.
All of this said in the end the topic is hard to discuss because of the influence of greed in agriculture and the effect on perception and subjectivity. It becomes down right shameful since this is an accepted as an obstacle but what people don't understand it is the primary reason for homogenizing the gene pool.
It has everything to do with muting plant expression through modern plant nutrition mentalities, most specially in cannabis.
Thus the people who conflate flushing with trigger sentience are simply idiots including the people who did that study. They were playing myth busters not mapping translocation of minerals based on several key elements.
The tell of the tale here is no leaf sample tests on plants that experience senescent in a natural environment. An environment where ionic availability of nutrients is controlled by rhizosphere interactions.
Once the base line for natural mineral leaf compositions (across several land race and modern cultivars) are established then there can be comparisons across growing methods with and without measured senescence but also at varying degrees of nutrient inputs.
Also another important note. Legalization is not federal so science has not put much real effort into mineral stores and the relationship to combustion and human smoking. Science has been given billions to understand this succinctly to create an identical experience in a cigarette. Mineral content in all combustible items effects the constituents of the smoke and it has also been studied for the purpose of air pollutants.
None of this has been established by science for cannabis through testing but if one where to research this across botany certain common denominators such as mineral content and effect on combustion have been established.
All of this said in the end the topic is hard to discuss because of the influence of greed in agriculture and the effect on perception and subjectivity. It becomes down right shameful since this is an accepted as an obstacle but what people don't understand it is the primary reason for homogenizing the gene pool.
It has everything to do with muting plant expression through modern plant nutrition mentalities, most specially in cannabis.
SuperBadGrower
Active member
In 2016-2017 I did so many trials with flushing and not flushing, drilling holes in stems, none of that shit has ever made my clones finish any faster or better than the controls. Trust I would do anything to shave a week off and get another crop in cause some plants were 10+ weeks. I tried to grow plants without much nitrogen because one of my best results ever was a flushed plant with N deficiency. Sometimes correlation just isn't causation
(OK not "anything" because I'm too cheap for AC and that would surely help finish them faster lol)
(OK not "anything" because I'm too cheap for AC and that would surely help finish them faster lol)
Last edited:
SuperBadGrower
Active member
Whats funny is, after reading this paper I have switched to plain water in the last 2 weeks and am getting the same results consistently (not just in 1 grow). Very happy since I dont have to mix & maintain a res for the whole grow. Meanwhile everybody who hasnt read the damn thing is arguing on the internet about it, strawmanning the author with every keystroke
Dont take anyones word for it, try it for yourself and see what you like best without being dogmatic about it.
Dont take anyones word for it, try it for yourself and see what you like best without being dogmatic about it.
Last edited:
CannaRed
Cannabinerd
Whats funny is, after reading this paper I have switched to plain water in the last 2 weeks and am getting the same results consistently (not just in 1 grow). Very happy since I dont have to mix & maintain a res for the whole grow. Meanwhile everybody who hasnt read the damn thing is arguing on the internet about it, strawmanning the author with every keystroke
Dont take anyones word for it, try it for yourself and see what you like best without being dogmatic about it.
Saving mixing time and saving nutrient money is win/win for you
You missed the boat and missed it by a mile...
Did I say drowning a plant with remove excess built up ferts...shit no...
Interesting you want to ramble about end of life and minerals....again you missed the boat...
You want to talk Agranomics...Lets talk about GDU and any plants requirements for lighting a day artificial or sun...
I seriously doubt 98% have a clue about GDU and light combine to produce a known date of chop plus or minus 2 days....
Continue on with your scrape of actually science, your getting there but not yet....Looks like to me your stuck in canna emotional science chad and bro facts wich mean as much as the dog shit on my lawn
Did I say drowning a plant with remove excess built up ferts...shit no...
Interesting you want to ramble about end of life and minerals....again you missed the boat...
You want to talk Agranomics...Lets talk about GDU and any plants requirements for lighting a day artificial or sun...
I seriously doubt 98% have a clue about GDU and light combine to produce a known date of chop plus or minus 2 days....
Continue on with your scrape of actually science, your getting there but not yet....Looks like to me your stuck in canna emotional science chad and bro facts wich mean as much as the dog shit on my lawn
We are like kit car builders we build , modify and hack away to get OUR kit car.Looking at what GM Ford etc do on the production line will not do much to help us build better kit cars.
https://worldwidescience.org/topicpages/g/growing+degree-day+gdd.html start wading through ll these papers, I got through the first page and found nothing about weed.
Lets look at 1 acre of corn 25K on average plants. At what percentage point do to start adjusting food and bug stuff? Is 5% ok for average crop loss?
If I have 4 plants and one gets sick I have 25% crop loss.
When you are predicting for acres there will be losses.
https://hprcc.unl.edu/agroclimate/gdd.php thats what this is about. Long term predictions.
We have a distinct advantage growing indoors, we know the rain fall, we know the food intake, we know the temperatures and we know the amount of light and the daylight hours.
To a point our GDD indoors is static.
Again this is looking at high production statistics which just don't apply to the mini production we produce.
Also we dont need an "average" to determine harvest.
https://worldwidescience.org/topicpages/g/growing+degree-day+gdd.html start wading through ll these papers, I got through the first page and found nothing about weed.
Lets look at 1 acre of corn 25K on average plants. At what percentage point do to start adjusting food and bug stuff? Is 5% ok for average crop loss?
If I have 4 plants and one gets sick I have 25% crop loss.
When you are predicting for acres there will be losses.
https://hprcc.unl.edu/agroclimate/gdd.php thats what this is about. Long term predictions.
We have a distinct advantage growing indoors, we know the rain fall, we know the food intake, we know the temperatures and we know the amount of light and the daylight hours.
To a point our GDD indoors is static.
Again this is looking at high production statistics which just don't apply to the mini production we produce.
Also we dont need an "average" to determine harvest.
You have some real insecurities because I didn't say that. I defined what flushing means outside and inside the cannabis niche and defined your process as triggering artificial sentience. Of course you don't understand what I am stating so you went full bore off topic and emotionally engaged.
No I want to stay topical and discuss active/passive uptake and the fate of nutrients/minerals/metals/etc in various scenarios with a baseline established on natural genetic expression and then compare the results to modern methodologies. Since senescence can be achieved in all scenarios and effects translocation measuring in this state and out of this state would establish the extent of both passive and active uptake across the board.
Evolutionary food soil web interactions dictate expression as well as other cues, many of which do not express the same when some hedges the bet with a maximum feed schedule. So chemovar expression should be measured parallel for the differential. This doesn't go into the generational effect plants have on soil for improved expression and agronomic performance since these science backing up this perspective are developed under that interest.
So your statement not only is false but underscore the fact that you are limited in your knowledge of all the topics at hand.
But let me guess what you made some money selling weed so you are weed mother fucking jesus
lol what a fucking joke
Talking of jokes Weird..... Did you hear the one about the organic grower who desperately talked himself into a corner without realising it?
Suggesting it be left to science using a greater field of context isn't a corner it is data.
Making it dogmatic or emotional is a sophomoric way to underline ignorance.
However every one of the differentials mentioned has measured implications that science has studied. They just haven't been done specifically on cannabis yet. Because of the perceived value of this information it won't be made available under the auspices of corporate research therefore I do not know how much public research is going to be made available.
Pretending there is no measurable difference and the potential implications is also irresponsible but if you are certain why wouldn't you welcome the notion of being proven right?
Either way being indignant about it is simply unreasonable and lacking and benefit. This tends to represent the depth of consideration many people give their own thoughts here.
It doesn't matter how hard you try to eloquently dribble my friend, it is still complete dribble that isn't supported by the rigour of science. In other words, it is opinion and opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. By the way have you seen that scientists are now looking at the impact of organics on high THC yielding cannabis. Interesting finding to date shows that humates reduce THC production in the flower. I think we are in for an interesting next few years re research. Of course what they are also now finding is that organic produce tends to be higher in heavy metals and more prone to mold *no surprises there, the BC Compassion club found this out 20 years ago and buried the lab tests. Frankly Weird, I want the cleanest end produce possible and people ultimately produce and buy cannabis for cannabinoids.
Last edited:
I have no clue what you are babbling about because not only is it topical but it is delusional.
This is about the fate of minerals in plant tissue relative to cultivation methods, cultivar and environment.
It isn't skewed in favor of a methodology which proves you don't even understand a majority of what I am implying. This wasn't about which was better that is you being defensive without cause. HOWEVER the bullshit about organics is the limits of shallow studies on organics and not reflective of what is realized by those with expertise.
If you lack the later, that is on you.
If the prospect of being able to understand these implications in all given scenarios is too much for you to grasp move the fuck on.
Don't throttle dialog due to your inadequacies.
