-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
University of Guelph paper- Flushing is a myth!
- Thread starter CannaRed
- Start date
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/169/2/914
Living to Die and Dying to Live: The Survival Strategy behind Leaf Senescence
addresses the varying impetus for senescence
Living to Die and Dying to Live: The Survival Strategy behind Leaf Senescence
addresses the varying impetus for senescence
Just a review. It doesn't matter WHAT you say or what data you present. To those in the lab coats - WE ARE THE ENEMY - our knowledge threatens their ivory tower.
Looks at Phylos. This is their ilk trying to tell us we don't know how to grow cannabis. The only ones posting in this thread that have shown plants putting out bumper yields and being pulled into full senescence at the same time.
It doesn't matter what WE say, because we are perceived as ignorant, before we ever type. It falls on deaf ears.
I'm not wasting more time in this thread, to be mocked and then continually parroted later, by those doing the mocking.
dank.Frank
Last edited:
MedFaced
Active member
Hey weird anyone who denies mobility of nutrients would be horribly wrong but then way back on this thread we discussed exactly this in that leaves are sources and flowers among others are sinks. The point being when a plant is under nutrient stress (i.e. being fed water only for an extended period of time) mobile nutrients are mobilized towards the flowers/buds where they are most needed completely defeating the whole argued to be purpose of flushing. We don't smoke the leaf buddy, we smoke the flowers/bud and this is where the nutrients are being mobilized to.
Terroir isn't a myth. Plants take up all sorts of shit during their growing cycle. If they can use it, they do, if they can't it gets stored. If too much gets stored it harms the plant. But by the time people flush, its generally to late as that stuffs in there. If it can't use it, it can't be washed out like flushing your kidneys. But most growers aren't adding anything that can't be used, at least not deliberately. Therefore, in theory, just giving the plants water, would cause a deficiency in what the plants were getting and cause their stores to run empty. The common meaning of flushing.
But as frank said, it doesn't apply to anyone using a compost type medium as that's impossible.
Personally I use compost and regulate the same effect by the ratio of plant size to container size.
I do prefer the taste of buds that come from faded leafed plants to those that were taken fully green.
But as frank said, it doesn't apply to anyone using a compost type medium as that's impossible.
Personally I use compost and regulate the same effect by the ratio of plant size to container size.
I do prefer the taste of buds that come from faded leafed plants to those that were taken fully green.
NOT if the plant has already entered senescence and begun hormone and phytochemical shift which fundamentally changes how it interacts with nutrients.
And NO. The nutrients are NOT being mobilized to the flowers at this point, they are being used to break down chloroplasts. We already posted the data to disprove this misconception.
So therefore, introducing drought at this stage does NOT place the plant under any type of nutrient stress. ZERO.
dank.Frank
Just a review. It doesn't matter WHAT you say or what data you present. To those in the lab coats - WE ARE THE ENEMY - our knowledge threatens their ivory tower.
Looks at Phylos. This is their ilk trying to tell us we don't know how to grow cannabis. The only ones posting in this thread that have shown plants putting out bumper yields and being pulled into full senescence at the same time.
It doesn't matter what WE say, because we are perceived as ignorant, before we ever type. It falls on deaf ears.
I'm not wasting more time in this thread, to be mocked and then continually parroted later, by those doing the mocking.
dank.Frank
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176161704701625
"During leaf senescence nutrients are mobilized to seeds, storage organs or new vegetative growth."
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/68/10/2513/2627441
Mechanisms involved in nitrogen recycling, such as autophagy, are essential for nutrient remobilization at the whole-plant level and for seed quality.
Leaf senescence is a developmental process needed for plant resource management. Because plants are sessile organisms that cannot move to escape from non-optimal environmental conditions and to find the mineral nutrients they need, their evolutionary history has selected programmed cell death and senescence to cope with the sporadic nutrient starvations they encounter. Leaf senescence is indeed useful to get rid of the inefficient and ageing photosynthetic organs that are actually the nutrient storage resource of the plant. As such, leaf senescence is likely to respond to the source/sink demands of the plant, and its regulation combines both growth hormones, nutrient sensing, and stress response networks (Buchanan-Wollaston, 1997; Lim et al., 2003; Guiboileau et al., 2010).
https://www.intechopen.com/books/se...cence-and-nitrogen-mobilization-and-signaling
Monocarpic leaf senescence recovers valuable nutrients from the leaves during flower induction and anthesis to provide these to the developing reproductive organs [1, 2]
And Frank perhaps it not the info you post but the delivery. Fact is this is a good discussion albeit somewhat science versus science deniers (or at best people who don't quite get the science and in some cases misappropriate it thinking they do get it but clearly don't). When an alternative view is introduced to their own they then become information fascists and start slinging child like insults and acting passively aggressively (I'm leaving ---- okay bye ---- oh look I'm back but I'm leaving...... this time
... Thing is champ lab reports never lie - on the other hand opinions are often flawed. What cannot be debated is that from an inorganic nutrient perspective flushing will achieve nothing; however, I made the point long ago that the parameters of the study were too narrow and rather than look what happens at an inorganic level they might need to look at what is taking place at an organic level (e.g. amino acids, carbohydrates/sugars, chlorophyll etc). The deniers are flogging a dead horse. The other horse has bolted. Arguing that flushing removes inorganic nutrients from the smokeable plant tissue is through science now an obsolete argument.
See above post = keep in mind this is not my opinion but scientific findings by many. Put simply, no you are very wrong - nutrients are being mobilized from the sources (leaves) to seeds and fruit (sinks) where they are most needed. Plants have become very adept over millions of years at reproduction - they are genetically programmed to reproduce and when there is nutrient stress they mobilize nutrients in such a way as to guarantee they fulfill their genetic programming which is reproduction.
Which opinion, and refine in what way? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Did I say something debatable? I'm just confused, don't read that as defensive.
And Weird that proves absolutely nothing. I too can easily make leaves go yellow. Starve the plant and send the nutrients to the flower as per science. In fact those photos sort of prove the point - you'll note the leaves in the flower still have some green (chlorophyll) while the lower leaves are completely yellow. That's how mobilization works - the nutrients from the sources (in this case shade leaves) is translocated towards new shoots and flowers, the very thing we smoke.
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.
To be honest, there's that many links on this site, that I don't routinely click them all, unless one gets flagged as being particularly useful.
I don't reuse the compost, so efficient size is my best tool, fan leaf removal helps the process move along if starting too late, a thin top layer of compost added slows it if starting too early. I'm sure there are lots of tools, including forcing solutions etc but I'm in a habit now. Still if its interesting I'll give it a read, thanks.
I don't reuse the compost, so efficient size is my best tool, fan leaf removal helps the process move along if starting too late, a thin top layer of compost added slows it if starting too early. I'm sure there are lots of tools, including forcing solutions etc but I'm in a habit now. Still if its interesting I'll give it a read, thanks.
