Oh trust me Weird when I say I understand a hell of a lot more than you which is why I am calling you out as an idiot. Save your dribble for the newbies and gullible who may actually buy your shit. Now run off and go play with your compost (shit in - shit out) and old school genetics and do hydroponic growers a favour and stop spouting organic flat earther bullshit on a thread that clearly is about hydroponic growing methodologies.
-
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
Oh trust me Weird when I say I understand a hell of a lot more than you which is why I am calling you out as an idiot. Save your dribble for the newbies and gullible who may actually buy your shit. Now run off and go play with your compost (shit in - shit out) and old school genetics and do hydroponic growers a favour and stop spouting organic flat earther bullshit on a thread that clearly is about hydroponic growing methodologies.
You can't even take one point of mine and prove the faulty basis of my perspective point out is even potentially incompatible with agricultural sciences. Why? because you are inept, incapable and lacking any capacity to do so.
Your reaction shows you are as emotionally fit as a typical under developed type who dropped out of high school. Is this you summed up or you just having a bad day and need a chance to gather yourself.
Passive uptake in hydro still occurs even during senescence and even during translocation of nutrients cause by the processes of senescence. It, just like heavy metals still can accumulate in healthy tissue which in cannabis would be buds at harvest.
This process varies based on genes, genetic environmental interactions and cultivation methodology. This is the reality of it.
The food soil web however mineral cycling and nutrient availability is regulated by several cues independent of the plant itself. It mediates this relationship. In other methods this mediation is not a natural component.
Pretending passive uptake in plants isn't a real phenomenon is not reasonable since it is a reality. Measuring the translocation of nutrients at key harvest times based on passive and active uptake is the only way to understand the implications.
This is before bringing in the implications for expression and the plants capacity to tailor soil for its own preference because it is tangential to the topic, not because it is meaningless or marginal. I don't want to conflate these points.
All anyone has to prove is that passive uptake in plants is a myth.
esting these theories do, but without a basis the results are absolute bullshit because there is no comparative context to measure benefit. Lacking the critical thinking skills to understand it and challenge it with simply and direct reason is all that is being presented by you.
Being a child about it just makes you an asshole.
TL
R Pretending there is no difference between the variation in nutrient that can be taken up passively in hydro versus the food soil web is something only the uneducated and emotionally attached do. The stunted folk who get scared when the limits of their capacities are exposed.
I said nothing negative at all about hydro but a bunch of scared kids came in based on muscle memory of the mind as if it was a hydro vs organics thread.
LOL imagine being this limited. What happened about giving a fuck about reality and the implications on cause and effect? How the fuck do any of you get scared by that? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Seriously get some help for your minds or grow medicine that actually stimulates neurogenesis not smoke that burns so hot there is no oxygen causing noticeable brain damage.
Look to the weight of your arguments as proof.
LOL same ol' ICMag
Ok Boys and Girls.....since this is 1 of the most controversial issues on EVERY weedsite that ever was , I`m gonna take yall to school Old Head style.....forget book learning when "on the job" training teaches faaaar more than you`ll ever read and or translate into reality with pot plants when all the studies are on fuckin vegetables ok ?.....now....
I first started growing inside with fast hydro , in SWC/shallow water culture fully recirculating 24/7 with 1/-1/2" in the bottom buckets growin big plants.....I learned from a Krazy ass Kanadian Klown that actually worked in the hydro greenhouse industry growin veggies and believe me.....he knew his shit....He was growin 3-1/2 lb plants with colas the size of 3 ltr coke bottles , so yeah I paid attention and did what I was told without question....and guess what.....shit worked for me too.....go figure......
Krusty buckets were based on once the plants were big enough to flip , they got ridiculous amounts of PPM`s/EC shoved up their ass and with optimum environment and watts per sq ft , you could see em twitch and grow right before your eyes....crazy shit.....and when I say jackin up the EC/PPM`s , we went into the 2500 -3000 range for as long as it took to show symptoms /tip burn , and then we flushed the plants with R/O water for 24-32 hrs till we got ppm`s back within parameters to start over again and shove shit up their ass once more....bottom line .....
With hydro you can manipulate the feed and give em all they can stand , and when it comes late flower and it`s time for the plant`s to cannibalize themselves and eat all the stored N and such left in the big fans left on the plant , that`s when lower ppm`s can be fed and dwindled down as the plant finishes under it`s own power......
I never believed in flushing other than with hydro to prevent over feeding , especially since I was always taught Organic couldn`t be flushed.....I know you can flush Coco with definite results , but at what cost in yield since my plants ALWAYS swelled the most the last 10-14 days as ppms dropped but they were still being fed lightly.....anyways.....
Not gonna deny Weird on his knowledge and experience , as well as others that SWEAR by the flush giving them their best possible end product , and I can also testify to the guy that was talkin bout giving the plants straight water the last 2 weeks with no comparable difference in size or yield from 1 grow to the next , but the plants were still eating their reserves leftover in the residual fan leaves holding waay more N than most folks realize.....regardless and lastly.....
I grew up on a farm and learned howta grow pot with mater fertilizer outside , so all things are possible with dope plants as long as you don`t over feed em , so if flushing the medium`s required ta make you feel better and end up with a cleaner product in your opinion , then by all means.....flush your shit with 3 times the volume of the container just like Weird`s preachin , but I call it a waste.....
I always dwindled my ppm`s down the last couple weeks till they reached tapwater range in the 150-200 range and let a good long dry and cure evaporate the rest.....again....My 2 cents from all those yrs.....
Peace.....DHF.....
.....
I first started growing inside with fast hydro , in SWC/shallow water culture fully recirculating 24/7 with 1/-1/2" in the bottom buckets growin big plants.....I learned from a Krazy ass Kanadian Klown that actually worked in the hydro greenhouse industry growin veggies and believe me.....he knew his shit....He was growin 3-1/2 lb plants with colas the size of 3 ltr coke bottles , so yeah I paid attention and did what I was told without question....and guess what.....shit worked for me too.....go figure......
Krusty buckets were based on once the plants were big enough to flip , they got ridiculous amounts of PPM`s/EC shoved up their ass and with optimum environment and watts per sq ft , you could see em twitch and grow right before your eyes....crazy shit.....and when I say jackin up the EC/PPM`s , we went into the 2500 -3000 range for as long as it took to show symptoms /tip burn , and then we flushed the plants with R/O water for 24-32 hrs till we got ppm`s back within parameters to start over again and shove shit up their ass once more....bottom line .....
With hydro you can manipulate the feed and give em all they can stand , and when it comes late flower and it`s time for the plant`s to cannibalize themselves and eat all the stored N and such left in the big fans left on the plant , that`s when lower ppm`s can be fed and dwindled down as the plant finishes under it`s own power......
I never believed in flushing other than with hydro to prevent over feeding , especially since I was always taught Organic couldn`t be flushed.....I know you can flush Coco with definite results , but at what cost in yield since my plants ALWAYS swelled the most the last 10-14 days as ppms dropped but they were still being fed lightly.....anyways.....
Not gonna deny Weird on his knowledge and experience , as well as others that SWEAR by the flush giving them their best possible end product , and I can also testify to the guy that was talkin bout giving the plants straight water the last 2 weeks with no comparable difference in size or yield from 1 grow to the next , but the plants were still eating their reserves leftover in the residual fan leaves holding waay more N than most folks realize.....regardless and lastly.....
I grew up on a farm and learned howta grow pot with mater fertilizer outside , so all things are possible with dope plants as long as you don`t over feed em , so if flushing the medium`s required ta make you feel better and end up with a cleaner product in your opinion , then by all means.....flush your shit with 3 times the volume of the container just like Weird`s preachin , but I call it a waste.....
I always dwindled my ppm`s down the last couple weeks till they reached tapwater range in the 150-200 range and let a good long dry and cure evaporate the rest.....again....My 2 cents from all those yrs.....
Peace.....DHF.....
.....
Flushing is a shitty term for an inappropriate process Dun.
However the plant maturing and this triggering translocation nutrients is a reality. This effects some plant functions uptake but not all. Another very important factor is nutrient source/type.
It becomes more complex but this isn't to say one way is better or the other is not. It is to get an expected range of function based on natural environment/genetic pairings compared to modern methodologies. What the plant does in the natural environment is an evolutionary baseline which has deeper implications but since it is not directly topical put that aside.
All cultivation techniques and genetic/environmental pairing offer challenges in producing market worthy weed when it comes to uptake, disease, etc. This worthiness however is not based on a comprehensive study of human physiology and cananbis interactions with contrast between natural and modern baselines. It is based on lack of disease and known contaminant.
However this is not just an edible commodity. The effect of tissue based constituents have not been studied in cannabis so there are no studies that measure these levels and determine how it effects smoke and the body's reaction.
For example hotter smoke properties have multiple effects on the quality of smoke in tobacco. Billions were spent to determine these dynamics in a very simple plant with a basic chemovar profile.
All of this is very important end to end however which is the critical point I am trying to elucidate.
The dynamics of what effects these levels are in our wheelhouse and that expertise is valuable both in personal satisfaction and public offering so there should be no apprehension in discussing this UNLESS
Someone is really high when they read it and think it challenges their personal value that is attached to the plant. It is worse when it the value of that identity is more important than understanding more about it.
However the plant maturing and this triggering translocation nutrients is a reality. This effects some plant functions uptake but not all. Another very important factor is nutrient source/type.
It becomes more complex but this isn't to say one way is better or the other is not. It is to get an expected range of function based on natural environment/genetic pairings compared to modern methodologies. What the plant does in the natural environment is an evolutionary baseline which has deeper implications but since it is not directly topical put that aside.
All cultivation techniques and genetic/environmental pairing offer challenges in producing market worthy weed when it comes to uptake, disease, etc. This worthiness however is not based on a comprehensive study of human physiology and cananbis interactions with contrast between natural and modern baselines. It is based on lack of disease and known contaminant.
However this is not just an edible commodity. The effect of tissue based constituents have not been studied in cannabis so there are no studies that measure these levels and determine how it effects smoke and the body's reaction.
For example hotter smoke properties have multiple effects on the quality of smoke in tobacco. Billions were spent to determine these dynamics in a very simple plant with a basic chemovar profile.
All of this is very important end to end however which is the critical point I am trying to elucidate.
The dynamics of what effects these levels are in our wheelhouse and that expertise is valuable both in personal satisfaction and public offering so there should be no apprehension in discussing this UNLESS
Someone is really high when they read it and think it challenges their personal value that is attached to the plant. It is worse when it the value of that identity is more important than understanding more about it.
That`s deep Bro.....I`m a simple retired farmer and homebuilder that grew a buncha dope in my day.....I know not about an inappropriate process on something I thought the thread was about.....Please continue on your path and know that everything you post means absolutely zero in the scheme of things as long as you give the plants what they need and keep ph within proper parameters.....Less is more with feed......keeps things in order ph and stored ppm wise.....
Environment means more than the sum of all the other ingredients with growin Dope Weird.....You`re way too technological for me to accept all that shit you`re sayin that means something in the whole drawn out scheme of things....
K.I.S.S. has kept me sane most of my life.....Complications are not my strong suit , and all your posts are at the least far more complicated than I`m able to deal with these days .....Take care and....
Peace.....DHF..... ......
Environment means more than the sum of all the other ingredients with growin Dope Weird.....You`re way too technological for me to accept all that shit you`re sayin that means something in the whole drawn out scheme of things....
K.I.S.S. has kept me sane most of my life.....Complications are not my strong suit , and all your posts are at the least far more complicated than I`m able to deal with these days .....Take care and....
Peace.....DHF.....
......
This is the whole point dude. Scientists are supposed to replicate the real life dynamics expressed in the world.
In this instance THEY didn't do due diligence and this conversation was merely point it out by exposing the differences science already recognizes that they did not include.
Scientists don't have the intimacy with any aspect of the process to understand in the proper context as it was illegal not because these differences don't matter or aren't measurable.
No one here really has to do anything unless they want to test leaf and bud for mineral content at harvest and diary the conditions.
In this instance THEY didn't do due diligence and this conversation was merely point it out by exposing the differences science already recognizes that they did not include.
Scientists don't have the intimacy with any aspect of the process to understand in the proper context as it was illegal not because these differences don't matter or aren't measurable.
No one here really has to do anything unless they want to test leaf and bud for mineral content at harvest and diary the conditions.
One of the things that is a bit a rub here for me is the days of gold and glory are past.
i.e. legalization is requiring more output than people have time to explore various techniques and compare them
I made it clear when I made those anecdotal comparison on my own that there was a luxury factor in the amount of money flowers were worth because it allowed to learn against the curve.
Here is the second part to this. In modern agriculture cultivar diversity drops as well as price in open legal markets. This means lowest cost production methods become the norm. These make for homogeneous environmental conditions to keep output homogeneous for marketability (the legal execs and scientists recognize this challenge).
This means something very important on a genetic to environment expression level. Something that is critical to discuss but most people seem bothered by the concept as if it compares their capacity and not simply a discussion about plant expression.
The point is the chemovar/secondary metabolite expression on these plants is not linear. They express according to many variables including:
Micro-environment both above and below ground (varies with medium and genetics)
Macro-environment both above and below ground (varies with medium and genetics)
Genetic disposition to express according to nutrient availability OR lack.
It is those last two words that is lost on most of the world of horticulture but is the new cutting edge in botany.
Not all metabolites like terpenes react favorably to high direct availability of nutrient.
Some react to below threshold levels because that is one method in which the plant predators, parasites or pathogens. It is a facet of how plants defensively react to their environment.
The reason most people aren't keen on the notion is most people don't ride the law of minimums and leverage the rhizosphere to bridge the gap for growth without remodeling nutrient density. This is how plants evolved to thrive in nature. The difference in expression in plants closest to land race relatives is remarkable.
If nutrient density mutes some properties of the plant's chemical expression then it is not a trait that breeders select upon. This is how hedging bets with max nutes schedules and controlled environments mutes expression.
Big facilities and producers can't capitalize on these nuances because of their size. This means the value add is in figuring this stuff out because science needs a few years behind the plant to hone these perspectives and it won't make them pliable to many producers. It will lead to granular products and services for maximum extraction of value.
i.e. legalization is requiring more output than people have time to explore various techniques and compare them
I made it clear when I made those anecdotal comparison on my own that there was a luxury factor in the amount of money flowers were worth because it allowed to learn against the curve.
Here is the second part to this. In modern agriculture cultivar diversity drops as well as price in open legal markets. This means lowest cost production methods become the norm. These make for homogeneous environmental conditions to keep output homogeneous for marketability (the legal execs and scientists recognize this challenge).
This means something very important on a genetic to environment expression level. Something that is critical to discuss but most people seem bothered by the concept as if it compares their capacity and not simply a discussion about plant expression.
The point is the chemovar/secondary metabolite expression on these plants is not linear. They express according to many variables including:
Micro-environment both above and below ground (varies with medium and genetics)
Macro-environment both above and below ground (varies with medium and genetics)
Genetic disposition to express according to nutrient availability OR lack.
It is those last two words that is lost on most of the world of horticulture but is the new cutting edge in botany.
Not all metabolites like terpenes react favorably to high direct availability of nutrient.
Some react to below threshold levels because that is one method in which the plant predators, parasites or pathogens. It is a facet of how plants defensively react to their environment.
The reason most people aren't keen on the notion is most people don't ride the law of minimums and leverage the rhizosphere to bridge the gap for growth without remodeling nutrient density. This is how plants evolved to thrive in nature. The difference in expression in plants closest to land race relatives is remarkable.
If nutrient density mutes some properties of the plant's chemical expression then it is not a trait that breeders select upon. This is how hedging bets with max nutes schedules and controlled environments mutes expression.
Big facilities and producers can't capitalize on these nuances because of their size. This means the value add is in figuring this stuff out because science needs a few years behind the plant to hone these perspectives and it won't make them pliable to many producers. It will lead to granular products and services for maximum extraction of value.
That sounds like some seriously profound sounding Confucious bullshit....Thanks for your contribution ....to nothing.....
Sorry Weird.....I`ll stay out of your discussion....I`ve made my points clear and concise , the rest can come from this shriveled up plum over there....Prune....what kinda Nick/handle is that.....Guess I`ve seen worse in my day from the peanut gallery , but not much.....this place....sheesh....
Peace.....DHF.....
......Yes Weird but thanks to commercialisation of cannabis we have seen significant increases in quality since the seventies (all bullshit about nuances aside)
Lost in a SOG
GrassSnakeGenetics
Every grow is a unique and quite intense mix of variables.
Studies are usually naively designed, hugely flawed, and only attempting to get enough confidence to to get some form of significant hypothesis on a single variable. Therefore often the information is often difficult to port directly to the real world without some understanding of the totality of interrelated variables that the single variable effects.
I dont add liquid nutes so their isnt a salt build up so im always flushing with just water and not because im not trying to play with the soil nutrient availability. Of course flushing in soil will massively change the microiome which imo will have the biggest impact on the plant.
Soil and hydro cannot be compared in soil systems its mostly bacteria delivering the nutrients to the plants an in hydro its just direct.
People arguing over the flavour of the fruit but theyre apples and oranges. Imo.
Studies are usually naively designed, hugely flawed, and only attempting to get enough confidence to to get some form of significant hypothesis on a single variable. Therefore often the information is often difficult to port directly to the real world without some understanding of the totality of interrelated variables that the single variable effects.
I dont add liquid nutes so their isnt a salt build up so im always flushing with just water and not because im not trying to play with the soil nutrient availability. Of course flushing in soil will massively change the microiome which imo will have the biggest impact on the plant.
Soil and hydro cannot be compared in soil systems its mostly bacteria delivering the nutrients to the plants an in hydro its just direct.
People arguing over the flavour of the fruit but theyre apples and oranges. Imo.
No! Science can quantify the difference in metabolites between hydro and real weed,but so can honest humans. Hydro is diet lite la Croix club soda weed at its best, compared to real coca cola soil goodness. Most hydro tastes like stagnant water, plastic, and other weird shit tho. Which means that entire community has no opinion on what concerns me: flavor, effect and medicinal value of Cannabis.
We all know people drink that expired diet Mexican knockoff soda water for reasons other than the experience. Pot growers shouldnt pretend weed is any different.
Flushing will always be a myth. Just like curing. Just like Sour Diesel. Just like sticky skunky thick cloud blowing herb that actually has flavor on the taste buds. Can you believe people didn't use boveda in the 20th century? How did grandpa even get faded?! Bunch of goat herders smoking dirty hash dabs!
Let's see mrweed jesus...I have been a "farmer" for 35 years....I think youmight beable to procure a mathmatical answer that I can bet $100 you was swimming in yer dady's nut sack when I started pulling pounds....Hommie....you think I am bullshitting you...Do you want a list of 100 of the biggest known respected names in cannabis that can vouch who the fuck I am....Do you want embarrassed, laughed at and returned to your troll cave in dumbass ville with a honary degree from chad university handed to you by me....numbnuts....
Let me give you a honest truethfull answer...In the Botony section there is a thread called the CeC thread the slownickle lounge ...No I am not slownickle but it took me a few months to read, comprehend and understand what honest to god factual reliable science is..Not organic minded bullshit of epic proportions...bro science and hand jobs for all that you spout justify and abide by...
Dew have a kick ass day, dew learn from a man that is known, respected and spent his life dedicated to global produce agranomics...Living in your mom's basement has no credit or actual factualnesss....Surprise surprise surprise go polish your clown shoes
Last edited:
if it took you 35 years to learn simple soil mechanics and thinking it means something in this conversation you might want to call cornell agricultural cooperative and ask a plant scientist about optimal nutrient profile and the effect of chemovar expression.
There is a reason the same cultivar expresses variable accordind to environmental cues.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/herbivores/chemical-plant-defense-against-herbivores
Chemical Plant Defense Against Herbivores
tip of the iceberg but guess what.
Plants don't express all chemovar constituents in direct relationship to nutrient availability. It is far more complex and nuanced. Science is just starting to understand the variability of these expressions within the plant kingdom let alone cannabis.
There is a reason the same cultivar expresses variable accordind to environmental cues.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/herbivores/chemical-plant-defense-against-herbivores
Chemical Plant Defense Against Herbivores
tip of the iceberg but guess what.
Plants don't express all chemovar constituents in direct relationship to nutrient availability. It is far more complex and nuanced. Science is just starting to understand the variability of these expressions within the plant kingdom let alone cannabis.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
It's been well known for decades that you won't get the same plant when growing the same seed in the Kush Mountains and California. Sometimes the results are worlds apart.
Imagine having an ego around this topic. One that science is starting to understand. One that any grower worth their salt should have noticed over 35 years or even half that.
If you haven't noticed the same interactions in real life you don't have a respectable working relationship with this plant or the natural world it evolved from. If that stings. Ohh fucking well, tough shit.
If you haven't noticed the same interactions in real life you don't have a respectable working relationship with this plant or the natural world it evolved from. If that stings. Ohh fucking well, tough shit.
lol
ok great I was talking about this 20 years ago and figured out some of the causes.
Can you articulate any into a meaningful contribution to the topic?
little hint for the kids
Maximum nutrition does not equate to maximum expression of a cultivars phytochemical expression, that is the whole fucking point here.
Imagine plants only thrived in perfect conditions lol
I can't fathom the lack of applied intellect that can deny observable reality. Ignorance like this has to be a choice right?
Ohh wait ...
All the dynamics I observed and expressed are validated by the scientific community and the negative implications on breeding are already manifest.
Remember when I was arguing for diversity among breeders to preserve diversity in p=exg expression for the benefit of genome fitness? of course not. Everyone was too busy trying to corner the argument so their breeding programs would be perceived as supreme for the benefit of cash money.
The real baseline for medicine is the natural occurring genetic/environmental expression coupled with interaction within a long standing culture. It has been so perverted past the baseline that many people don't it exists.
Remember when I was arguing for diversity among breeders to preserve diversity in p=exg expression for the benefit of genome fitness? of course not. Everyone was too busy trying to corner the argument so their breeding programs would be perceived as supreme for the benefit of cash money.
The real baseline for medicine is the natural occurring genetic/environmental expression coupled with interaction within a long standing culture. It has been so perverted past the baseline that many people don't it exists.
Then you should tell the scientists. Imagine being afraid of data.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-54564-6_21
Chemical and Physical Elicitation for Enhanced Cannabinoid Production in Cannabis
