Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth!

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

    #46
    The tobacco industry has done exhaustive studies on the effect of nutrient stores on smoke composition, look there to understand the implication of nutrient stores and the desire to manipulate them for benefit of better "smoke".


    The problem with this study is the subjective nature of nutrient stores in the plant being flushed. The baseline of natural soils many cultivars come from are close to or at the laws of minimum and modern western agriculture adheres to law of maximums (maximum uptake before burn occurs) to hedge their bet and guarantee maximum yield although it has profound implications on secondary metabolite production which is a major catalyst to cultivar homogenization.


    In order to get a plant to feed off of its own stores at maturation in a couple weeks it cannot be too rich in nutrient stores for it to make a notable impact.



    I can't imagine the plants in the study looked all that different start to finish since they only showed the one state of health by deduction one can assume there was none they noticed.


    There is a wealth of information on this topic here on ICMAG that goes far deeper than the study as far as trials and experience you might get great value therein.
    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


      #47
      Originally posted by Drewsif View Post
      I'm starting to think
      Give it some time, the first try is often the hardest.

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by Tony21 View Post
        Comparing grapes which is a fleshy watery fruit to dried unpollinated seed pods seems a stretch.
        Cannabis actually has a stronger response than grapes to environmental changes. Lots of information out there on the subject to suck up.

        Facts are, 50% of the population has up to an average ability to taste. This means only the upper 25% can detect the smaller changes, and the lower 25% have a greatly reduced ability to detect anything.
        Originally posted by Nifty_PoT View Post
        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?
        This is a good question I'd like to see answered. What exactly can be filtered out? What ends up in the oils being extracted?

        Originally posted by SuperBadGrower View Post
        edit: re-reading this it sounds kinda vague, and I'm stoned.
        You got it right the first time. Appreciate it greatly and I'm outta rep for the day or I'd hit you up. Tyvm.
        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


          #49
          I read this post:

          https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-truth...ushing.409622/

          And much information to uptake, so to speak.
          "So we're just done with phrasing, right, that's not a thing anymore?."

          "He's like Jesus, just dumber and fatter, and holds the Bible upside down".


          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Weird View Post
            The tobacco industry has done exhaustive studies on the effect of nutrient stores on smoke composition, look there to understand the implication of nutrient stores and the desire to manipulate them for benefit of better "smoke".


            The problem with this study is the subjective nature of nutrient stores in the plant being flushed. The baseline of natural soils many cultivars come from are close to or at the laws of minimum and modern western agriculture adheres to law of maximums (maximum uptake before burn occurs) to hedge their bet and guarantee maximum yield although it has profound implications on secondary metabolite production which is a major catalyst to cultivar homogenization.


            In order to get a plant to feed off of its own stores at maturation in a couple weeks it cannot be too rich in nutrient stores for it to make a notable impact.



            I can't imagine the plants in the study looked all that different start to finish since they only showed the one state of health by deduction one can assume there was none they noticed.


            There is a wealth of information on this topic here on ICMAG that goes far deeper than the study as far as trials and experience you might get great value therein.

            Links to these studies?

            Comment


              #51
              I'd like to see another person who has tested this themselves and hear what they have to say. I think we all agree this paper is bunk either way.

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Gauss View Post
                I'd like to see another person who has tested this themselves and hear what they have to say. I think we all agree this paper is bunk either way.

                A few here think it's "bunk" - certainly not everyone. Definitely if you look at the parameters of the study and what the author was looking at it's definitely not bunk as to flushing or no flushing the nutrients stored in the tissue are about the same.

                Comment


                  #53
                  I'm not trying to be a dick, but there are way too many assumptions made from these results in regard to reality. I can do experiments all day long, or I can actually test it where the rubber meets the road and get the real answer. I don't especially care what is going on, but I know it works and this paper is shoddy science, aka bunk.

                  Again, not trying to be a dick and go guns hot, but please stop quoting me for speculation when I'm asking for evidence. I have zero interest in elevating anyone's grows unless they are asking for help, in reality I'm just here because the truth is getting turned around. Find the truth yourselves and you won't be here quarrelling. The fact that people want to argue about it and generally condescend tells me they haven't tested it— which I specifically am asking for input on. This is an OGcom 101 topic guys, I've read the speculation for years and I don't need more personally addressed.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    individual papers or studies on their own are rarely conclusive. same as in any fair scientific test or bunch of statistics, the more research there is , the more conclusive a person can be. but on its own is food for thought. seems to me that if you over feed a plant while alive, it will take up too much of say nitrogen and burn. so seems if the concentration is lower near the end of flower, it will take up less because less is available. cant this be the same as whats going on while flushing?

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Aren't experiments literally 'where the rubber meets the road'? Double blind tests (no bias) etc?
                      And isn't however you test this yourself an experiment?
                      The only way to get unbiased results is by double blind testing isn't it?

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Frylock View Post
                        Aren't experiments literally 'where the rubber meets the road'? Double blind tests (no bias) etc?
                        And isn't however you test this yourself an experiment?
                        The only way to get unbiased results is by double blind testing isn't it?

                        Yep

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Thanks for contributing everyone!
                          Great conversation.
                          "I have only read fragments of your posts. But I have read enough to know that you can grow some mean herb."
                          --- CVH
                          _____________________________
                          "we growing.
                          till the fucking zombies show."
                          --- Useless.Gardens

                          My current thread

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by Gauss View Post
                            I'm not trying to be a dick, but there are way too many assumptions made from these results in regard to reality.
                            Sure, but it's not the paper's fault that laypeople misinterpret it and draw false conclusions. It's more fair to to say that the interpretation of readers* is bunk. I have to add that your statements are very loaded. The onus is now on you to show how the part about flushing is shoddy science. The things we all want to know are simply not being published yet.

                            * most of the people talking about this probably haven't even read the entire thing
                            Last edited by SuperBadGrower; 07-13-2019, 11:37.
                            3 out of 3 germinated!!! Fantastic strain! 5 Stars.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by SuperBadGrower View Post
                              Sure, but it's not the paper's fault that laypeople misinterpret it and draw false conclusions. It's more fair to to say that the interpretation of readers* is bunk. I have to add that your statements are very loaded. The onus is now on you to show how the part about flushing is shoddy science. The things we all want to know are simply not being published yet.

                              * most of the people talking about this probably haven't even read the entire thing

                              I read the entire thing over a year ago - there's a lot to the research beyond flushing. The methodology was pretty sound and inline to agricultural research best practice, but then one would expect that with a Uni thesis as one must submit the thesis outline and practices that will be implemented in the study. There's a couple of impressive names at Guelph and they are seasoned in what they do. Thing is, a subject like this was always going to be met by some with dogma. But yep very good point; if people are going to critique the study then at least have the decency to read the study (i.e. get an education:-).

                              Comment


                                #60

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X