Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    I never bothered to flush really.... i never flushed vegetables or anything so don't see a need.

    Comment


      #17
      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
      Bunch of fake ass neo-capitalists masquerading
      as counter
      culture cannabis enthusiasts with
      their thinly veiled
      self-justifications
      catering to the morally
      ambiguous
      for the sake of the
      ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR

      Canna Caramels ---> click here Organic Soil ---> click here Current Grow --> click here

      Comment


        #18
        Good thread on a very debatable theme. I tend to flush my indoor plants but after a couple of outdoor crops planted on heavily pre-fertilized soil ( it was where a pig breeder used to throw the pig shit during the early 2000´s, now it´s totally forbidden) where the end product was pretty much perfect to my taste made me think about the merits of flushing.
        And what about the nutes translocation mentioned by Dank.Frank? Only from observation, too early&no time for research now, it seems logical to me.
        As soon as you cut back feeding on the orchards the leaves start loosing the dark green color to lighter green. But that might only be a natural process due to fruit maturation and nothing relating nute intake.
        Thanks anyway for making me think about it again.
        To all of you i wish a great day.
        Turn your problems into new solutions.

        Here we go again (MIS, Kritical Kush,Motavation,Suicide Cheese, OG Pest, Blues and many others)
        https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=274159

        Adventure in Morocco
        https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=182914

        Wizards of Oz Testers MBS&Z99
        https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=228036

        Ganesh Deep Strawberry Diesel
        https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=225420

        A Life full of stupid shit is a well fertilized Life
        Make your own mistakes and please don´t miss the lessons hidden within them

        Comment


          #19
          I've tested flushed and unflushed side by side, there is a noticeable difference in the final product no doubt. Flushed burns better, doesn't spark or sizzle, tastes cleaner near the end of the bowl, and smolders to a much softer ash. There is a big difference, I don't see how people can debate it unless they haven't tried it themselves or are doing things very differently than I nutritionally. I haven't tried it with every cut of every strain but I doubt it can vary much to where it wouldn't be noticeable when compared. If you gave me two nugs of the same cut and one was not flushed I am confident I could tell you which by only sampling one of them to the bottom of the bowl. Maybe it's not a nutrient factor, but the flush definitely makes a difference.

          Tell them to test it in a bowl, that's where the answer really is to the questions that matter.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by dank.frank View Post
            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

            But the mobile nutrients move to the areas of the plant where they are most needed - so the buds. This is counterproductive based on the flawed science that underpins flushing. i.e. the nutrients mobilise towards the buds which we then smoke.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Gauss View Post
              I've tested flushed and unflushed side by side, there is a noticeable difference in the final product no doubt. Flushed burns better, doesn't spark or sizzle, tastes cleaner near the end of the bowl, and smolders to a much softer ash. There is a big difference, I don't see how people can debate it unless they haven't tried it themselves or are doing things very differently than I nutritionally. I haven't tried it with every cut of every strain but I doubt it can vary much to where it wouldn't be noticeable when compared. If you gave me two nugs of the same cut and one was not flushed I am confident I could tell you which by only sampling one of them to the bottom of the bowl. Maybe it's not a nutrient factor, but the flush definitely makes a difference.

              Tell them to test it in a bowl, that's where the answer really is to the questions that matter.

              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.

              Comment


                #22
                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

                During senescence, leaf cells are subject to massive physiological and biochemical changes, including a dramatic metabolic transition from anabolism to catabolism which results in nutrient redistribution to newly developing organs (Lim et al., 2007). The transition from carbon assimilation to nutrient remobilization involves the degradation of cellular structures such as chloroplasts (Masclaux et al., 2000).

                Given that senescence in plants is a highly dynamic process that is precisely coordinated by a complex regulatory network in response to endogenous developmental signals and environmental cues, investigations of leaf senescence should be accomplished by integrative analyses which allow an assessment of the spatio-temporal, dynamic changes that occur in physiological, biochemical and molecular phenotypes. Großkinsky et al. (2018)
                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 by dank.frank; 07-12-2019, 11:45.
                Bunch of fake ass neo-capitalists masquerading
                as counter
                culture cannabis enthusiasts with
                their thinly veiled
                self-justifications
                catering to the morally
                ambiguous
                for the sake of the
                ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR

                Canna Caramels ---> click here Organic Soil ---> click here Current Grow --> click here

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by BongFu View Post
                  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.
                  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-...aste-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
                  Bunch of fake ass neo-capitalists masquerading
                  as counter
                  culture cannabis enthusiasts with
                  their thinly veiled
                  self-justifications
                  catering to the morally
                  ambiguous
                  for the sake of the
                  ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR

                  Canna Caramels ---> click here Organic Soil ---> click here Current Grow --> click here

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by dank.frank View Post
                    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 .
                    Such is life ...

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by dank.frank View Post
                      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-...aste-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

                      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.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        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
                        Bunch of fake ass neo-capitalists masquerading
                        as counter
                        culture cannabis enthusiasts with
                        their thinly veiled
                        self-justifications
                        catering to the morally
                        ambiguous
                        for the sake of the
                        ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR

                        Canna Caramels ---> click here Organic Soil ---> click here Current Grow --> click here

                        Comment


                          #27
                          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].

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by BongFu View Post
                            Well no Frank you are the one denying science - you posted a study that you clearly don't understand to support your flawed opinions.
                            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
                            Bunch of fake ass neo-capitalists masquerading
                            as counter
                            culture cannabis enthusiasts with
                            their thinly veiled
                            self-justifications
                            catering to the morally
                            ambiguous
                            for the sake of the
                            ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR

                            Canna Caramels ---> click here Organic Soil ---> click here Current Grow --> click here

                            Comment


                              #29
                              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.
                              "There is no god higher than truth"

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by dank.frank View Post
                                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

                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X