Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth!

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

    #31
    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.
    Fair enough, but I'm not saying all that or even talking about any of that. Try it and if you don't agree with me sure I'll eat my shoes, but I shit you not.

    Comment


      #32
      lol did their system of flushing force false senescence to match the natural phenomenon

      many inept people feed the plant and/or flush in such a manner that the nutrient stores are not effected

      this trickled top down in agriculture

      here is a plant with "forced" senescence for those who don't understand the concept

      BLACK LIVES MATTER

      galatians 6:7

      The shape it takes could be yours to choose

      What you may win, what you may lose
      Sativa is manna from heaven - BLueGrassToker


      Nobody every told me I found out for myself, you've got to believe in foolish miracles - o. osborne

      Although the masters make the rules
      For the wise men and the fools
      I got nothing, Ma, to live up to - b. Dylan

      Comment


        #33
        Indeed, it cannot be argued that a blind trial is invalid because people have "different tastes". In that case, all the research in the world would be invalid and we can forget about finding things out, because everybody is not equal. It doesn't matter if you (think you) taste a difference. What matters is that a representative group of people of adequate size can discern a difference between 2 types of the same weed, as BongFu pointed out.

        I read this paper "long ago", so from the top of my head:
        I'll be the first (?) to remark that this is a flawed study? This experiment was poorly executed (just read the documentation if you don't believe me) and it has not been replicated by anyone as far as I am aware. It's rare for me to read such a clusterfuck of a paper. The main goal was not to discover the effects of flushing.

        I would not be quick to jump to conclusions. Realize that a lot of the "anti-vaccination" movement is based one flawed study from the 90s

        More data would be needed IMO
        Of course, the stoner myth of "nutez" somehow leaving the tissue of the plant by means of flushing the medium is complete nonsense, but anybody with half a brain and some time for reading knows that already. It's pointless to argue with people who think nitrogen just flies out the plant. On the other hand, the benefits of "flushing" a medium with salt buildup where the runoff is 6 EC should also be completely obvious to anyone.

        So to get a better picture of flushing calls for more chemical analyses and probably taste tests to back that up, IMO. In this study only the presence of some macronutrients is tested. It is no surprise for various reasons that there is no significant difference between treatments. (But it is nice to have it "confirmed", at least in this one small trial)

        In defense of flushing practices, we can ask ourselves: is that the complete picture? Do NPK Ca and a few others account for the complete taste profile of the product? I am not a chemist but I wager that the answer is No. Are there qualitative differences between plants that have had to translocate minerals vs. plants that have been "spoon-fed"? I would be the first to admit that I haven't a fucking clue, and this sounds like the next logical avenue of research. (If a stress treatment yields 25% less but is 100% more dank, what do you want?)

        Anyway, all criticism aside, cannabis research is young and you gotta start with the basics. A bunch of myths are being put to the test. Another known one is the phosphorus overfertilization.

        What's funny to me is that these things actually piss some people off. Many respond with anger. Sometimes it's best to just read your literature, instead of opening a can of worms on the internet by trying to help and educate. Always an interesting discussion.
        I gave someone some bud from 2 plants and told them the source was commercial. They could tell with certainty that one of them was "sprayed" (with something bad, I guess) by the structure and taste. The only thing sprayed on any of those plants was tap water, 12 weeks before harvest. Others have remarked that it must have been organic soil grown. I'll tell you you're right when you want.

        I don't flush... I do give water for the last 2-1.5 weeks. Lord knows when you follow the bottled nutrients labels and don't water to runoff, you better get a hose! The first time I grew and flushed I saw 8000ppm, haha
        3 out of 3 germinated!!! Fantastic strain! 5 Stars.

        Comment


          #34
          F.U.C.K. the troll. I'd smoke it with you, Weird.


          @Superbadgrower - Thank you. I wasn't about to explain the difference between a graduate thesis and a peer reviewed, published article. But hey - if I say enough sciencey things I'll sound correct, isn't that how it works.


          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


            #35
            Originally posted by Mr. Greengenes View Post
            I think the word has been used to mean at least two different things. Some people use it to mean withholding nutrients (N) past peak flowering to get flower that's lower in chlorophyll at harvest. Other people just mean running water through the soil mix to 'flush' the excess nutrients from the medium itself, usually to correct an over feeding mistake.
            Just one of many points of confusion in the cannabis world. Ty prohibition efforts!!


            I find the use of the word 'bud' in a 'scientific' paper to be cute.
            I would like to know the accuracy represented by this statement:
            Originally posted by thepaper
            there are no significant differences between any of the treatments analyzed using ANOVA at significance of p<0.05


            In my opinion, there is a definite (though very slight) difference in quality between my faded cannabis, and my faded cannabis with a 5 day flush. (hydro) Nobody else notices the difference.

            Are their instruments less sensitive than my palate? Or is it the soil and nutrients they (over?)used? lol
            Tending Your Reservoir for a Full pH Swing and Cleaner Cannabis (A Healthier Approach to Hydroponic Cannabis)
            DIY STS Mixing/Using Guide for Feminized Pollen/Seeds
            DIY Super Inexpensive HEPA Filtration
            6-Second Pain Relief for Arthritic and Joint Pain
            8-Minute CBD Test
            Cool and Dry Flowering Discussion Thread

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by SuperBadGrower View Post
              Indeed, it cannot be argued that a blind trial is invalid because people have "different tastes". In that case, all the research in the world would be invalid and we can forget about finding things out, because everybody is not equal. It doesn't matter if you (think you) taste a difference. What matters is that a representative group of people of adequate size can discern a difference between 2 types of the same weed, as BongFu pointed out.

              I read this paper "long ago", so from the top of my head:
              I'll be the first (?) to remark that this is a flawed study? This experiment was poorly executed (just read the documentation if you don't believe me) and it has not been replicated by anyone as far as I am aware. It's rare for me to read such a clusterfuck of a paper. The main goal was not to discover the effects of flushing.

              I would not be quick to jump to conclusions. Realize that a lot of the "anti-vaccination" movement is based one flawed study from the 90s

              More data would be needed IMO
              Of course, the stoner myth of "nutez" somehow leaving the tissue of the plant by means of flushing the medium is complete nonsense, but anybody with half a brain and some time for reading knows that already. It's pointless to argue with people who think nitrogen just flies out the plant. On the other hand, the benefits of "flushing" a medium with salt buildup where the runoff is 6 EC should also be completely obvious to anyone.

              So to get a better picture of flushing calls for more chemical analyses and probably taste tests to back that up, IMO. In this study only the presence of some macronutrients is tested. It is no surprise for various reasons that there is no significant difference between treatments. (But it is nice to have it "confirmed", at least in this one small trial)

              In defense of flushing practices, we can ask ourselves: is that the complete picture? Do NPK Ca and a few others account for the complete taste profile of the product? I am not a chemist but I wager that the answer is No. Are there qualitative differences between plants that have had to translocate minerals vs. plants that have been "spoon-fed"? I would be the first to admit that I haven't a fucking clue, and this sounds like the next logical avenue of research. (If a stress treatment yields 25% less but is 100% more dank, what do you want?)

              Anyway, all criticism aside, cannabis research is young and you gotta start with the basics. A bunch of myths are being put to the test. Another known one is the phosphorus overfertilization.

              What's funny to me is that these things actually piss some people off. Many respond with anger. Sometimes it's best to just read your literature, instead of opening a can of worms on the internet by trying to help and educate. Always an interesting discussion.
              I gave someone some bud from 2 plants and told them the source was commercial. They could tell with certainty that one of them was "sprayed" (with something bad, I guess) by the structure and taste. The only thing sprayed on any of those plants was tap water, 12 weeks before harvest. Others have remarked that it must have been organic soil grown. I'll tell you you're right when you want.

              I don't flush... I do give water for the last 2-1.5 weeks. Lord knows when you follow the bottled nutrients labels and don't water to runoff, you better get a hose! The first time I grew and flushed I saw 8000ppm, haha

              Nice to see a well thought out and informed post. I agree with most things you say here - namely, you always need to consider the parameters of a study and think critically about the findings.



              Where inorganic nutrient ions are concerned being "flushed" due to feeding only water for 14 or so days - it's plant science 101 to determine this argument/myth is highly flawed; however, the parameters of this study were far too narrow in that while they considered inorganic nutrients in the plant tissue they failed to look at what potentially could be happening at an organic level re carbohydrates/sugars, chlorophyll etc. It, was though a good start in the metanarrative.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Douglas.Curtis View Post
                I would like to know the accuracy represented by this statement:

                In my opinion, there is a definite (though very slight) difference in quality between my faded cannabis, and my faded cannabis with a 5 day flush. (hydro) Nobody else notices the difference.

                Are their instruments less sensitive than my palate? Or is it the soil and nutrients they (over?)used? lol
                Put simply, ANOVA is a statistical method that can be used compare groups and find out whether the differences between are real. When you talk about a significant difference, that basically means that there was a <5% chance that the difference is based on chance. (This is the p-value, something may said to be significant when p = <0.05)
                So, things can be different, but not significantly different. However, to say "there is a difference, it's just not significant!" is definitely not accepted.
                In some fields p-values of <0.05 are handled, but this is not the case everywhere. p=0.05 is still a 1 in 20 chance that the result is random.

                It's not so much about their instruments and measurements, which seem to be sound. In this case it is about what is being measured. Here, they measured N, P, K, Ca, Mg, some other shit. Those macronutrients are just scratching the surface of what is in there.

                If anything, you can see this as preliminary research for others to pick up on. It always starts with the basics

                edit: re-reading this it sounds kinda vague, and I'm stoned. To paraphrase that; their measurements and conclusions are Sound. To state that there is no difference between flushed and unflushed plants is would be false. A more accurate interpretation is that there is no difference between macronutrient contents of flushed and flushed plants. (i.e., those plants in this particular experiment)
                Last edited by SuperBadGrower; 07-12-2019, 15:11.
                3 out of 3 germinated!!! Fantastic strain! 5 Stars.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Mr. Greengenes View Post
                  I think the word has been used to mean at least two different things. Some people use it to mean withholding nutrients (N) past peak flowering to get flower that's lower in chlorophyll at harvest. Other people just mean running water through the soil mix to 'flush' the excess nutrients from the medium itself, usually to correct an over feeding mistake.

                  Combining the two concepts gets me a bit confused. So water is run through the mix in an attempt to achieve low chlorophyll at harvest? I don't think that will work. Even just withholding the N doesn't work very well unless you're using a container size that restricts roots at peak flower.

                  As to whether cannabis grown with restricted nutrients during flower tastes and smells better, I'm pretty sure it does. It's the same with grapes, more flavorful but smaller. Besides, N during flowering builds more vegetative mass in the bud itself, which if you think like I do that trichome count is genetic, is basically reducing potency by increasing leaf mass. That might be an even better reason to limit nutrients during flower.

                  Just my 2c, anyway cool discussion!

                  Interesting post, can you please provide link(s) to back up your assertion that trichs count is genetically determined in the sense that strong big growth dilutes the strength of the buds and slow small growth increases the strength due to concentration of a difinitive number of trichs in a smaller arrw/volume of buds???



                  Comparing grapes which is a fleshy watery fruit to dried unpollinated seed pods seems a stretch.



                  Personally I think starving plants only reduces yield, and any effect on taste has the same influence as Thor's hammer has on lightning lol
                  sigpic "By means of my hands I struggle to create a second world within the world of nature"
                  adapted from De Natura Deorum (The Nature of the Gods, ca. 45 BC) by Marcus Tullius Cicero

                  Comment


                    #39
                    How important is flushing/leeching of nutrients when you are only making concentrates like rosin or co2 oil? I would think not at all seeing though you dont have as much plant matter in the end product?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Well, this entire thread proved an interesting read.
                      Grow Diary:
                      https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread....=1#post8624268

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Weird View Post
                        many plant trials are laughable in comparison to the methods being used in cultivation and in comparison to methodology that grows the best smoke chem, transitional or organic
                        not the first one to call it a flawed study because the anecdotal failure of others including those who ply science to understand the differential from a naturally occurring baseline

                        plants stop uptake in nature due to environmental and can be easily replicated unless you over feed in the first place which is dominant in most agricultural practices

                        suckle the teat of science and expect to get kool aid

                        Originally posted by Weird View Post
                        lol did their system of flushing force false senescence to match the natural phenomenon?

                        many inept people feed the plant and/or flush in such a manner that the nutrient stores are not effected

                        this trickled top down in agriculture

                        here is a plant with "forced" senescence for those who don't understand the concept

                        View Image
                        BLACK LIVES MATTER

                        galatians 6:7

                        The shape it takes could be yours to choose

                        What you may win, what you may lose
                        Sativa is manna from heaven - BLueGrassToker


                        Nobody every told me I found out for myself, you've got to believe in foolish miracles - o. osborne

                        Although the masters make the rules
                        For the wise men and the fools
                        I got nothing, Ma, to live up to - b. Dylan

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Is there an indoor synthetic grower that’s willing to try not flushing and report back? Compare smoke reports for flushed vs non?

                          I’m already a non-flusher so I’m no good for this. The best candidate would be someone experienced who regularly does flush and is willing to risk a plant for the greater good.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Also, one study doesn't constitute a conclusion. It has to be replicated to have any real validity.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Nitrate poisoning is real. I've seen it.
                              Reality trumps fantasy. Always.

                              https://www.agriculture.com/livestoc...te-of-missouri
                              For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff.

                              "But Brawndo's got what plants crave."

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by MedFaced View Post
                                Is there an indoor synthetic grower that’s willing to try not flushing and report back? Compare smoke reports for flushed vs non?

                                I’m already a non-flusher so I’m no good for this. The best candidate would be someone experienced who regularly does flush and is willing to risk a plant for the greater good.
                                I'm starting to think fukushima fucked you guys up hard core. The slightest hint of ferts in the mid south will get you killed trying to pass that shit off. In SoCal half the bud smells like fert lines and tastes like saran wrap.
                                For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff.

                                "But Brawndo's got what plants crave."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X