-
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
I would imagine that nobody is happy to see you. Like, ever. Maybe you're not so awful in real life, I don't know but I can only hope.
TexanTerps
Active member
Coming from a farming family I went to school and got a degree in agronomy/soil science then went into the farming/fertilizer business.
I am sorry but you are misled.
Yes N will leach from a soil at differing rates depending on texture.
The Soy plant doesn't produce the N on it's own. It is a symbiotic relationship with N fixing microorganisms in the rhizosphere. We inoculate the seed with those beneficials before planting. Those red nodules are the clusters of N fixing bacteria at work not 100% N.
N(itrogen) must be in the nitrate form for plant uptake, Urea is broken down into Nitrate by enzymatic activity. We use Urease inhibitors to keep N from volatilizing into the atmosphere, not "heat activated stuff"
Nitrogen is held in the soil organic matter that has yet to decompose. Simply put, The microorganisms use N in the decomposition process and it is released in available form afterwards. Too much fresh organic matter that has not yet been broken down will cause you to pay a "nitrogen penalty" early in the season. Thats one benefit to a side dress of a pre-plant fert.
Not saying you are wrong, just elaborating.
The whole flushing bit, I think the science is there, but many attributes of clean and well grown flower may be attributed to a flush, whereas I believe it is more of a ripening effect and a proper cure that give the smooth/harsh result.
Weird I'll give you points for tenacity. You are like a government employee who gets to the top simply by staying the longest while all the real talent quits and goes into the private sector. You'd also be missing that modern breeding has taken great pride in terpenes and bag appeal - piney, cheesey, berry, cherry, banana, lemon, orange, tangerine, hash etc etc etc etc. Certainly an array of the plethora of strains today were bred with both cannabinoids and terpenes in mind. Careful how you select papers. Some of them tend to really lack an understanding of the history of cannabis in pop culture.
There is nothing in the new offerings that is magic, they represent a limited combination of common chemovar constituents. Absolutely boring outside of some minor variations between them.
They are however easy for the inept to put into production and get marketable results.
None of what you say proves you understand the implications of various genetic and environment expression relative to the available methodologies or the topical implications.
Now if you (or anyone) bother to read those two articles and my statement show me where I misunderstand these dynamics from both or either a scientific/experiential perspective I would welcome it. If you want to lower the bar and make commentary to make yourself feel good about things I am going to comment that it offers no value.
If you can't have an adult conversation about these dynamics I am going to exploit that weakness for what it is.
I don't owe anyone here the steam off my shit except for Gypsy, babba and a few friends. My gratitude is not a debt. Science and legal business isn't going to give you the steam off their shit either. Everything they uncover will be turned into proprietary marketable products.
You can very expect from them "fuck you pay me" for anything. The thing that keeps a cultivator valuable is the value add.
In our world that means innovation and innovation is born from perspective that others lack.
Now if one looks back to when weed was worth 5k + a pack and I was making some arguments for "best practices" in regards to using chemicals like eagle20 I got the same resistance.
I also got a number of very sincere thank yous from people who used the advice to adapt practices that allowed them to remain competitive in the legal market. Neither business or science took the time or was willing to suffer the strife to do so.
Now why don't you read those two articles I posted and the statement I made and offer some real insight. Or at least be adult enough to ask what is the point if you really don't get it.
You don't think I get the disconnect?
Well no Weird you are off topic and have been since you started ranting on this thread. The thread is about flushing in a hydroponic environment but here you are as a dinosaur flat earther soil organic grower spouting shite about growing in soil. The disconnect is you.
Not exactly.
The test is about flushing in a specific environment.
All the forgone conclusions are relative but disconnected from the thesis of the paper that flushing is meaningless.
To really understand the dynamic at hand there has to be a basis that represents reality end to end. That is in all forms represented today.
I have grown in all the methods discussed and did so with fine results. I have also been able to replicate abiotic stress (one of the factors that varies expression) in with all those methods.
So I am not bringing the perspective of best methodology in context to a legally functioning market.
Topically it is about passive and active uptake, transportation and fate of minerals/metals which is relative to methodology. The subject that has yet to be directly studied until recently. Much of the results are proprietary. This was typical of the tobacco industry that poured billions into research. This does not mean they improved tobacco past the organic leaf treasured in Cuba, for example. It is not as complex as far as secondary metabolites but because it is combusted it offers a set of scientific data no other plant does.
So herein is the reality as also seen in the progress of tobacco cultivars. Modern cultivation hedges its bet past the point of the law of minimums. They measure success in biomass and a handful of terpenes and a very limited group of cannabinoids. The cultivars are being bred within this type of environment. It may not seem consequential but in the process the cultivars are being bred to rely on heavier nutrient supplies and therefore process more nutrients. The increase of biomass compared to secondary metabolites is not symmetrical so as this happens the cultivars are only improving as far as become fool proof for growers.
The fate of mineral transportation is not much different than plant expression. Healthy cultivars of today's pot at harvest are not being measured against natural baselines. Now back to establishing a basis. I can recall many "strains" (still run some) that do not like maximum environmental ingredients. These were not wild or land race but only a few generations past this.
Very few people were fond of growing genes like this because they are hard to do so successfully compared to improved cultivars. With the shift in value there was a huge shift into "hearty" cultivars.
So in the end what determines the basis is not just genes, or environment or expression within these variables but the comparative to the natural occurring baseline to the modern use of modern cultivar. Naturally occurring in regards to drug cultivar means smoked by locals but not bred out of natural occurring environment. Some tropical sativas come to mind.
Many cultivars that were problematic in modern maximum yield environments were quite valuable in medical context and offered a different but very enjoyable quality of smoking experience.
Electric sativas come to mind and the low feed input to pull them off made for such soft light smoke but the potency and unique effects undeniable. There are many examples however they offer little value unless they have been experienced.
There is no ego in this argument except from those who are not confident in their own capacity. If you expect more from your self than you should I could see that happening. If you think I set an unreasonable bar for you I could see that happening. You aren't the university of Guelph so it is their bar I am contesting.
My argument about modern cultivars making people stupid is a value add but only because at this point the only people who project the argument onto themselves are hydro guys rocking the lasts strains to keep in the $$$. Ironic isn't it.
No ego from my side either Weird. You actually bring some good arguments to the table although "weirdly" cherry pick sometimes flawed research in an attempt to undermine other research you disagree with
Mate the whole modern Canna game has been driven by dollars since day one from the evolution of landrace imports in the sixties to now. If it hadn't have been for the dollars seed banks and indoor grows would never have existed because capitalism drove the whole deal. To contend otherwise is to live with your head buried deeply in the sand. Hydro came along relatively late into the scene really - the eighties in actuality, as a response to heavy flying and the need to go indoors. The point being is what did that entire post have to say about flushing in a hydroponic growing environment? I really don't give a rats about your views on the commercialisation of cannabis. This thread is about flushing in hydroponics and how it is categorically now proven that you cannot flush stored nutrients from the tissue. Duh, go figure on that one!! Anyone with half a clue would have understood this but for eons we have had stoners thinking they can turn a plant into a cannibal lol and calling fertilizers plant food. Science is a damned good thing only some of the old school are being a bit challenged by it because it contradicts their long held albeit very flawed anything but scientific beliefs.
Last edited:
Somatek
Active member
The thesis of this paper was primarily looking at optimal irrigation strategies and the effect of water stress on yield and cannabinoid production and found that slight water stress was optimal for reducing water/fertiliser costs without significantly affecting yield. The flushing experiment was a sidebar, not the main thrust of the paper. Ironically it didn't find flushing significantly reduced yield or cannabinoid content, so the author does suggest it may have value in reducing costs.
Bongfu has succinctly pointed out how off topic you are by trying to make the study about more then it was.
Bongfu has succinctly pointed out how off topic you are by trying to make the study about more then it was.
Interesting but off topic take since the thread title is
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth![/FONT]
add to it the context of the OP's first post
From the body of the paper
why not make me really look like an asshole and show me I am simply wrong about my assertions
If you can't perhaps stop posting because if you aren't bringing a valid argument to the table it means there is none to be had
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth![/FONT]
add to it the context of the OP's first post
From the body of the paper
Now I notice still there is no valid argument discounting my commentary just a bunch of gaslighting and attacking of character
why not make me really look like an asshole and show me I am simply wrong about my assertions
If you can't perhaps stop posting because if you aren't bringing a valid argument to the table it means there is none to be had
Better yet tell me how the formality of that paper dictates the course of this thread and forcibly limits the notion of fate of nutrient in plant tissues? Or why comparison to the spectrum of mineral transportation in cannabis should not be considered in the same conversation?
You that limited? Or are you idiots too new to realize that your method of posting only gives me cause to show what is really under your dress?
You that limited? Or are you idiots too new to realize that your method of posting only gives me cause to show what is really under your dress?
Flushing variation was only in regards to various water volumes. I have never heard of anyone flushing hydro by flooding the plants with water in greater frequency. They didn't test by using nutrients throughout the life cycle of the plant. None of it simulates what has been common practices reported over the internet since laughing moon and over grow.
Basically touting a facet of abiotic stress as a means of enhancement which has NOTHING to do with nutrients.
Basically touting a facet of abiotic stress as a means of enhancement which has NOTHING to do with nutrients.
So... flushing: yes or no?
the comment alone implies something other than water only
I never fed my hydro plants at the end of life cycle the simply were given straight water
standard procedure that I simply refer to as not over feeding or dumping nutes into the environment
water only in organics and the plant soil interaction regulates uptake
minerals need to cycle which is also dictated by plant soil interaction
neither process is flushing but 20 years ago my hydro plants all had proper fade as do my organic plants do now
So don't overfeed, and lay off the nutes the last few weeks. And the study was dumb and/or doesn't prove what people think it does. Is that what you're saying?
Plants tailor the rhizosphere with microbiology that tailors performance and reduces nutrient and water needs
More accurate and safer than hydro unless you over feed. the same problem exist in hydro but it lacks the accuracy and leads to unnecessary excess the fate of which can end in plant tissue.
Understanding Cultivar-Specificity and Soil Determinants of the Cannabis Microbiome
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099641
More accurate and safer than hydro unless you over feed. the same problem exist in hydro but it lacks the accuracy and leads to unnecessary excess the fate of which can end in plant tissue.
Understanding Cultivar-Specificity and Soil Determinants of the Cannabis Microbiome
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099641
You should stop showing your ignorance on topics you clearly have little understanding of re "hydro ... lacks the accuracy and leads to unnecessary excess the fate of which can end in plant tissue." Yeah although you can finely tailor a nutrient regime in hydro because all elements are readily bioavailable whereas in soil organic growing it lacks the necessary control because of the need for microbial breakdown and hence unknown quantities. You just stepped right into the idiot pooh. What you are talking about is luxury feeding or feeding to excess which many novice hydro growers do; however, that is a statement on growing skills and not hydroponics.
Nope but good try. You are very clearly off topic.
