Flushing / Nitrogen / Trichomes

[zipflip]

The nutrients don't make it into the buds. Never have, never will. The plant converts the nutrients into plant sugars as they leave the main stem.

The nutrients do not go beyond the main stem and into the leaves and flowers.

so then do you think maybe its the higher levels of plant sugars that leave the main stem and shoot into the leaves an buds like was said that causes the harshness .....??
i know sugar burns somethin funky on its own tho im sure the plant sugars in mention arent liek the table sugar ya use on ya breakfast cereal... lol
but maybe thats wat started the myth or sprung the misundrstood myth behind it. or not so a myth but the reason behind the flushin process. "to eliminate nutes in the end product" when really/technically flushing would prevent nutrient uptake into the main stem which would like you stated bout it pushin out the sugars then and thus hinder the levels of plant sugars leavin the stem and into the leaves an buds.
im not statin this my opinion here. just merely wondering ...

 

[StoneyBud]

so then do you think maybe its the higher levels of plant sugars that leave the main stem and shoot into the leaves an buds like was said that causes the harshness .....??
i know sugar burns somethin funky on its own tho im sure the plant sugars in mention arent liek the table sugar ya use on ya breakfast cereal... lol
but maybe thats wat started the myth or sprung the misundrstood myth behind it. or not so a myth but the reason behind the flushin process. "to eliminate nutes in the end product" when really/technically flushing would prevent nutrient uptake into the main stem which would like you stated bout it pushin out the sugars then and thus hinder the levels of plant sugars leavin the stem and into the leaves an buds.
im not statin this my opinion here. just merely wondering ...

In my opinion, Plant sugars are necessary for the production of resin and THC. In my opinion, if you shut off the plants capability to produce plant sugars, then it will negatively affect the production of resin and THC.

IF by doing so, it did actually make it smoke better, In my opinion, the result would be that you would be smoking less THC than you would have been had you left the plant alone.

Edited to make clear that what I've written is only my opinion. - Stoney

 

[2Dog]

saves me work .....Im all for it. no flushing... god Im lazy. also saves water.

 

[StoneyBud]

saves me work .....Im all for it. no flushing... god Im lazy. also saves water.

Flushing helps if you have a case of overfeeding resulting in salts building in a dirt grow.

If the overage of salts is harming your plants, then the only way to resolve that is to flush them back out of your soil.

In hydro, after adjusting the nutrient strength in the reservoir, the first run of the pump will flush any nutrient solution in the grow chambers back into a more diluted solution. Flushing in hydro happens with every pump run.


Edited by Stoney to remove unproven claims.

 

[Hick]

Flushing DOES HELP if you have a case of overfeeding resulting in salts building in a dirt grow.

If the overage of salts is harming your plants, then the only way to resolve that is to flush them back out of your soil.

In hydro, after adjusting the nutrient strength in the reservoir, the first run of the pump will flush any nutrient solution in the grow chambers back into a more diluted solution. Flushing in hydro happens with every pump run.

Starving a plant by depriving it of nutrients for a time period before harvesting is also a myth. No testing has been done on it's effects either.

By depriving the plant of nutrients, it makes the plant produce hormones that will result in the switching from making THC and resin, to plant survival.

Starvation before harvest lessens the amount of THC in the final product.

It can't help but do so.

Anyone who disagrees with this can prove me wrong by simply showing me the Double Blind results from the testing of that well worn myth also.

It sounds good, but it's only sound, no fact.

Please, no more anecdotal evidence like "I've done it both ways and *I* know there's a difference!"

Double Blind Testing proves it. Nothing else. If it's real, someone, somewhere would have the test results.

Marijuana is tested to death on hundreds of College campuses throughout the world every year by kids who love it.

It's also being tested to death by every drug company on the planet right now.

Of all that testing, I've seen none that prove either theory of "Flushing" or "Nutrient Deprivation".

I'd love to see any that anyone can find.

EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion.. "if" their opinion is of that that it produces smoother smoke or cleaner burning, "so be it".
I no of no "blind tests" that disprove it.. Any citations of such?
"I" don't see 'your' anecdotal evidence as any more correct/valid than anyone elses.
I'm not going to allow another pissing match over opposing "opinions" on the same subject that ha been rehashed over and over here. If anyone has undeniable 'proof' one way or the other, I would love to see it also. Otherwise, it is only personal opinions, experiences being expressed, nothing more.
You say prove me wrong.. I say prove your right.. Show me a "blind test" disproving flushing, please..

"Personally" I have done it both way, on different occasions, with different nute regimes. Both chemical and organic(semi)..
I "have" seen with my very own eyes, joints that nearlly refused to burn, left a long black hard ash. "I" blamed it on over fertilization with miracle grow.(salts..???) Was I right??.. Was "that" the reason, and the sole reason..?? I can't say, but then again, neither can you. Unless you have one of those "blind tests".. documented with miracle grow fetilizers ...(and if you did, I'm pretty confident that you would have dragged it out before now)
I don't usually flush using FF products, and I see no ill effects.
I'm not arguing the point, only bringing up discrepancies that "I" have observed. I can't see a "benefit" from starving a plant either.
I'm not saying "flush".. I'm not saying "don't flush".
I'm saying it is a personal preferrance, and person grow methods, not unlike organics or chemical fertilizers, enhancers, ect.
Hydroponic plants are subject to nearlly immeadiate reaction to nutrient changes, so I understand. But that is just not so in that nasty o' dirt. Dirt has the ability to store the nutrients and can be used as the plant finds need for them. Far more than enough to feed a plant for two final weeks of life.
I am NOT saying you're 'wrong' stoney, but what I am saying, is you have not proven yourself absolutely, indisputably, "right".. IMO. But you're asking others to.

 

[painterdude]

....well put Hick....I am a dirt grower, Fox Farms for the first time, and I appreciate the explanation.....pee-dude

 

[Mutt]

I don't usually flush using FF products, and I see no ill effects........But that is just not so in that nasty o' dirt. Dirt has the ability to store the nutrients and can be used as the plant finds need for them.

Being organic or at least mostly organic does make life simple don't it Let the plant grab what it needs and leave the rest.

 

[BBFan]

By depriving the plant of nutrients, it makes the plant produce hormones that will result in the switching from making THC and resin, to plant survival.

Starvation before harvest lessens the amount of THC in the final product.

Stoney-
Can you point me to some articles/sources for this info? I'd love to read more.

There's no thanks button, so THANK YOU.

 

[StoneyBud]

EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion.. "if" their opinion is of that that it produces smoother smoke or cleaner burning, "so be it".
I no of no "blind tests" that disprove it.. Any citations of such?
"I" don't see 'your' anecdotal evidence as any more correct/valid than anyone elses.
I'm not going to allow another pissing match over opposing "opinions" on the same subject that ha been rehashed over and over here. If anyone has undeniable 'proof' one way or the other, I would love to see it also. Otherwise, it is only personal opinions, experiences being expressed, nothing more.
You say prove me wrong.. I say prove your right.. Show me a "blind test" disproving flushing, please..

"Personally" I have done it both way, on different occasions, with different nute regimes. Both chemical and organic(semi)..
I "have" seen with my very own eyes, joints that nearlly refused to burn, left a long black hard ash. "I" blamed it on over fertilization with miracle grow.(salts..???) Was I right??.. Was "that" the reason, and the sole reason..?? I can't say, but then again, neither can you. Unless you have one of those "blind tests".. documented with miracle grow fetilizers ...(and if you did, I'm pretty confident that you would have dragged it out before now)
I don't usually flush using FF products, and I see no ill effects.
I'm not arguing the point, only bringing up discrepancies that "I" have observed. I can't see a "benefit" from starving a plant either.
I'm not saying "flush".. I'm not saying "don't flush".
I'm saying it is a personal preferrance, and person grow methods, not unlike organics or chemical fertilizers, enhancers, ect.
Hydroponic plants are subject to nearlly immeadiate reaction to nutrient changes, so I understand. But that is just not so in that nasty o' dirt. Dirt has the ability to store the nutrients and can be used as the plant finds need for them. Far more than enough to feed a plant for two final weeks of life.
I am NOT saying you're 'wrong' stoney, but what I am saying, is you have not proven yourself absolutely, indisputably, "right".. IMO. But you're asking others to.

Sorry Hick, I won't mention it again on the site. I've edited the posts that I could and deleted the ones that I said anything in that I can't prove or am too lazy to prove.

 

[Hick]

Well stoney, my intention was not to piss you off. But the "blind test" .."prove it" .. challenge should be equally appropriate for both sides of the argument.."IMO".
I can't argue against your point with any scientific documented tests. BUT.. If fertilizers/nutrient cannot, do not affect the way that I have seen some burn, (black, crackle 'n pop,) What does it?? What makes that hard black "clinker" in the bottom of a bowl?
Surely you have seen the kind of 'burn' that I'm talking about. ?? "Something" effects it? Causes it.. "I" don't know what or why, I only know it occurs. And it has long been contributed to nutrients. Maybe it is a 'myth'.
I admittedly have no 'proof' that it is chemical nutrients, over nutrient, lack of flushing, ect.
I just feel that a 'blanket statement', declaring flushing non-beneficial, is 'just' as difficult to prove as saying 'every grow' must be flushed.
I fully understand that 'starving' a plant at any juncture can not improve the "plants" health. That only makes sense. But can too much, or not enough, effect the burn-ability?
I kinda' think the whole 'flushing' practice may have came about from soil grows. And really not so much "flushing", as simply running plain water and allowing the soil to be leeched of the nutrients.
Dammit man!.. you know this ain't my first bbq, but I've never claimed to know it all either.
Give "me" something to contribute that "clinker" to, other than what is in the plant.

 

[StoneyBud]

Well stoney, my intention was not to piss you off. But the "blind test" .."prove it" .. challenge should be equally appropriate for both sides of the argument.."IMO".
I can't argue against your point with any scientific documented tests. BUT.. If fertilizers/nutrient cannot, do not affect the way that I have seen some burn, (black, crackle 'n pop,) What does it?? What makes that hard black "clinker" in the bottom of a bowl?
Surely you have seen the kind of 'burn' that I'm talking about. ?? "Something" effects it? Causes it.. "I" don't know what or why, I only know it occurs. And it has long been contributed to nutrients. Maybe it is a 'myth'.
I admittedly have no 'proof' that it is chemical nutrients, over nutrient, lack of flushing, ect.
I just feel that a 'blanket statement', declaring flushing non-beneficial, is 'just' as difficult to prove as saying 'every grow' must be flushed.
I fully understand that 'starving' a plant at any juncture can not improve the "plants" health. That only makes sense. But can too much, or not enough, effect the burn-ability?
I kinda' think the whole 'flushing' practice may have came about from soil grows. And really not so much "flushing", as simply running plain water and allowing the soil to be leeched of the nutrients.
Dammit man!.. you know this ain't my first bbq, but I've never claimed to know it all either.
Give "me" something to contribute that "clinker" to, other than what is in the plant.

You were correct in that I can't claim an absolute without testing as well.

Whenever a "new" idea is presented in the Scientific community, it's always presented as either nothing more than an idea, as you have done in the quoted post, or as a tested, (using the appropriate testing such as Double Blind Testing), method which can't be denied without first disproving the results of the testing.

My beef is with the flushing for any reason other than to rid soil of it's overages and bring it back to a non-toxic state, being stated as fact. Proven fact, because someone "feels" it's right from smoking some weed from a batch that they already know the conditions of.

The very principles of how plants work are talked around by many who advise others to use flushing. They talk about solids being absorbed into the flowers. That simply doesn't happen, as stated in every text involving known facts of plant processes.

Perhaps Marijuana has passed the known values of Botany and is now doing something that would have been impossible in last years textbooks. Who knows. I sure don't. In that, you're perfectly correct in chastising me for stating absolutes without testing.

I'll be much more aware of what I post in the future.

Thank you for pointing that out to me.

 

[NorCalHal]

That was the BEST Civil argument on flushing I have ever seen!

Props to both Hick and Stoney for keepin' it civil and showing respect to each other!

I only wish that more members could take example of that, myself included!

 

[Growdude]

The sole fact that there is so much debate about flushing only proves there is no one way, right way to go about your harvesting, if there was we would all know it and do it.

 

[Cass]

awesome info thanks! passing it back pp. :48:

No doubt, I'm happy to hear that others don't find it necessary to flush!

 

[The Hemp Goddess]

My personal experience:

Well, a while back I had 4 girls of the same strain, growing at about the same pace. I decided that I was going to give 2 of them plain pH'd water for the last week and 2 of them a nute solution about 800 ppms. Well, I don't quite know how I was so stupid, but one of them got a nute solution over 1600 ppms and was dead within 12 hours. I harvested her and put her in to cure. The other 3 girls were harvested 6 & 7 days later. I can say that I see very little difference in the way that they taste and the way they burn. The girls harvested early (with the huge dose of nutes gives) a little more up high, but (after a 3 week cure) the smoke is not harsh and burns well.