University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth!

[CannaRed]

Man... Should have known this was going to start a argument.

I thought it could just start a great discussion. It did, but please everyone calm down.

One thing I noticed about the study I posted is that they never smoked the bud. There just tested for some nutrients.

So I guess maybe I shouldn't have made the title "flushing is a myth".

Im still glad I started this thread just because of all the great links and knowledge being passed around.

I have alot of reading material.

 

[Weird]

Man... Should have known this was going to start a argument.

I thought it could just start a great discussion. It did, but please everyone calm down.

One thing I noticed about the study I posted is that they never smoked the bud. There just tested for some nutrients.

So I guess maybe I shouldn't have made the title "flushing is a myth".

Im still glad I started this thread just because of all the great links and knowledge being passed around.

I have alot of reading material.

you didn't start the argument

a desire for science to pony up information it doesn't understand completely did

 

[TychoMonolyth]

^lol. You win one internet.

 

[Weird]

don't forget science is subject to the organic beings that ply it

 

[BongFu]

and if it didn't make a big difference in my smoking pleasure why would I risk underfeeding and cutting off nutrient supply

you are simply masking unsubstantiated claims in light of multiple contributors with lengthy experience and little direct science with the species and cultivar in question arguing that because that study has been made it is absolutely conclusive.

it is the definition of strawman trolling. plenty of them have come and gone. If you have something productive have at it. if not move on.

You see Weird you are missing my point... At which point did I say that flushing didn't affect taste/flavor? In fact what I have stated from the outset is that the parameters of the study were too narrow and while they looked at inorganic nutrients in tissue analysis what they didn't do was look at what was occurring at an organic level. That's the problem with having strong opinions on a subject - people tend to put blinkers on and only grasp at things that confirm their strong opinions. Had you actually read and listened to what I am saying you would have got 1) It is futile to argue that running water only for the last two weeks changes anything in regards to inorganic nutrients stored in the bud tissue (p.s. no surprises there.... this is plant science 101) 2) the parameters of the study however were too narrow - researchers now need to look further as to what occurs organically during the flush (I would also say millions of growers and smokers can't be wrong - certainly something occurs which appears to give the smoke a more "clean" flavour - no way can this be a placebo effect given the numbers) 3) However with regards to the addition in order to establish whether indeed flushing makes the product taste better double blinds need to be run (hell who knows perhaps flushing is some kind of collective hysteria - either way double blinds can draw a conclusion) and 4) until all of this is done no scientific conclusion can be drawn (with the hypothesis that flushing makes smoked cannabis taste better).

 

[BongFu]

don't forget science is subject to the organic beings that ply it

And that is hippy crap jingoism:

 

[TychoMonolyth]

^ JRelax..... is that you?

 

[BongFu]

^ lol - satire albeit pertinent because it is jingoism. I like Weird. He has brought some good stuff to the table.

 

[dank.frank]

One major purpose of double blind is to help reduce academic fraud or unintentional (or intentional) supplying or altering of information that might skew results - ESPECIALLY - where placebos are concerned.

Academic integrity is compromised rather frequently by ambition and grant chasing.

To say that humans plying science does not in some way inherently pose some risk, would be to say double blinds are unnecessary.

Why, a standard premise is that something under observation changes it's behavior - our human interaction is a fundamental calculation of any good science.

It is not hippie whatever you called it. Why do you hate pot heads and stoners so much that you must vilify the culture and the data it produced, in order to make a point? In fact, it's hippies that have created a viable platform for scientific hypothesis to be asserted.

I have zero issue with academia. I have a huge issue with academic piety. One who has truly learned anything, becomes aware they truly know nothing, compared to the depth of information and knowledge that exists in the world.



dank.Frank

 

[BongFu]

^ Stop distorting what I say Frank.... You are an information fascist who screams foul and carries on like a clown whenever anyone introduces information that conflicts with your own narrow views. To answer your question, I have dedicated my life to the culture and taken several bullets for it but when you say culture you seem to purport we are a homogeneous group of like minded people. Bollocks to that. The so called pot culture is evolving all the time and legalization has brought with it both good and bad. One thing though - the fact that we are now able to scientifically scrutinize the plant and this information to go mainstream has been one massive win for the pot culture. Of course, some of the old school (quickly becoming relics) have the flawed belief that just because they exploited prohibition and pot for filthy lucre they somehow have ownership to the culture. Sorry move over - a freight train is on the line. Adapt or die.

 

[Gauss]

Science is infallible, the problem is that humans write the hypotheses.

Let's keep this on the road.

 

[BongFu]

Science is infallible, the problem is that humans write the hypotheses.

Let's keep this on the road.

Um you have just argued why we need science.

 

[Dropped Cat]

for those too inept to google

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429656/

Leaf mineral nutrient remobilization during leaf senescence and modulation by nutrient deficiency

I can't fathom a "professional" from a "professional" agricultural industry being this ignorant and inept

This is a good paper.


To quote from your link:


A first hypothesis may rely on the effect of the characteristic source/sink ratio of each species
that can be strongly influenced by breeding in particular. T. aestivum and H. vulgare have been
selected mostly for yield improvement via increases in grain production per plant leading to
a strong reduction in the source to sink ratio. As a consequence, it can be hypothesized that
nutrient remobilization has been positively selected toward higher efficiencies.

This can be further supported by the high macronutrient apparent remobilization efficiencies
recorded in this study that reached nearly -80% for N, K, S, and Mg (Figure (Figure3A)3A)
and nearly −40% or more for Mn and Cu (Figure (Figure3B).3B).

The effect of breeding on remobilization can also be supported by the fact that compared to old cultivars,
the new high yielding varieties of winter wheat have been characterized by a larger loss of dry matter
from vegetative organs and this effect has been associated with a more rapid and more complete
remobilization of water-soluble carbohydrates from the vegetative parts (Mehrhoff and Kühbauch, 1990)

Emphasis mine.


I keep my environment constant and grow only the plants
that do well.

My crossing projects positive results reflect the balance
of nutes and yield.

Drying and curing (when done right) on the other hand have proved
(In many studies) to have a major impact on taste and flavour,
by breaking down chlorophylls and converting starches into sugars, as we all know.

Most attributes blamed on unflushed buds are likely the result of unproper drying/curing.

Green leaves make bigger buds, so the rub is controlling the ratio/application of
your nutes to maximize trich production while minimizing green production.

Good post, Weird.

 

[Weird]

the paper shows very large amounts of translocation during senescence up to 40% of macro nutrient and various micro nutrients relative to several factors

one thing the paper does not even consider is local cultivar performance

If we are growing a strain it does best if the environment matches the one its genes express best in. I find that to be natural and each cultivar has its own preferences. Dynamics change as we get closer to making that match. They do not consider plant to rhizosphere interaction rather bypass and control it. So evolutionary and adaptive expressions are assumed but not explored nor divined.

by most that it

 

[BongFu]

^ Yes it does Weird and it is supported by numerous other papers. Where does it translocate to? If nutrients are moving where are they moving to? (A: the harvestable product we smoke).

 

[Weird]

^ Yes it does Weird and it is supported by numerous other papers. Where does it translocate to? If nutrients are moving where are they moving to? (A: the harvestable product we smoke).

do your own trial smoking is "subjective"

there are tobacco studies that measure constituents of smoke and aim for targets perceived to me "more enjoyable"

having grown like this for 20 + years out of preference I think it is cute you deny personal satisfaction as a metric

I wasn't willing to wait for science to answer that question I like many others have.

You can't change that reality through argument.

Just wasting bandwidth

 

[White Beard]

Okay, who ordered the scolding?

Hippie-punching on a cannabis board - don’t tell me, ‘you’re not here to make friends’....
Your “arguments” are all over the place

 

[BongFu]

^ You seem to be suggesting the cannabis scene is made up entirely by hippies when in fact hippies are a tiny minority in the cannabis scene. You'd also note that I certainly haven't scolded Weird - he has brought great stuff to the table. I guess it surprises me how many people pervert and distort on forums when they can't undermine the science. i.e. if you can't undermine what the person is saying attack their person. E.g. Frank kicking off with "impotent child" insults when until that point in time things had been reasonably civil. Oh and my arguments have been extremely consistent since the outset but hey never let the facts stand in the way of an agenda right?

 

[dank.frank]

Completely wrong. Post #25, you started with the insults. Post #26 I told you not to start acting like a weak child. That resulted in you calling me a pedophile - because, yeah, that's what academics do. You are such a fraud.

And here we are still. You acting like an imbecile over a post where I didn't even quote or address you - and you go of the deep end in post #150 because you just can't STAND it when I post something and don't address you.

I post virtually the same information as Weird in terms of senescence and translocation and you call me a hack who denies science and him you converse with like a person.

Your issue is obvious to everyone in this thread. Grow up.



dank.Frank

 

[Gauss]

Nothing is more ubiquitously hippy than cannabis. Nothing.