# Do you flush? Do you kill the lights prior to harvest?



## Topo (Jul 23, 2012)

I just wanted to get an idea where our peeps stand on these two topics. I am from the old school, but 'want to stay current with new discoveries.

Thank you.


----------



## Ringsixty (Jul 23, 2012)

I dont flush... Grow under SCROG
I cut off nutes about 2 weeks before harvest.
No lights 48 hrs before harvest


----------



## Topo (Jul 23, 2012)

Ringsixty said:


> I dont flush... Grow under SCROG
> I cut off nutes about 2 weeks before harvest.
> No lights 48 hrs before harvest


Thank you for the votes. I'm more curious about the last dark 48. My next harvest will be the first time I try it.


----------



## Ringsixty (Jul 23, 2012)

Topo said:


> Thank you for the votes. I'm more curious about the last dark 48. My next harvest will be the first time I try it.


Some swear by doing the lights out thing.
I do it. but, really haven't notice any change I could detect.
I think the jury is still out on the light thingy.

Good luck


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 23, 2012)

Would you stop feeding a pregnant woman 2 months before her due date???

No, so why would you stop feeding your plants for the last quater of it's flower (fattening) period.


----------



## reppinhigh22 (Jul 23, 2012)

MrMeanGreen said:


> Would you stop feeding a pregnant woman 2 months before her due date???
> 
> No, so why would you stop feeding your plants for the last quater of it's flower (fattening) period.


I'm no scientist or anything but I think it's because when you keep feeding it until harvest it'll be bound to be full of unused nutrients the plant didn't put to use. So some is wasted & I believe it makes it more harsh(idk if drying and curing will get it out of the bud or allow the bud to put it to use)
This is all just what I'm assuming though so anyone can correct me if its been proven that the plant uses all of the ferts by the time you're smokin it with no flush or without only water for the last week or 2.


----------



## k0ijn (Jul 23, 2012)

reppinhigh22 said:


> I'm no scientist or anything but I think it's because when you keep feeding it until harvest it'll be bound to be full of unused nutrients the plant didn't put to use. So some is wasted & I believe it makes it more harsh(idk if drying and curing will get it out of the bud or allow the bud to put it to use)
> This is all just what I'm assuming though so anyone can correct me if its been proven that the plant uses all of the ferts by the time you're smokin it with no flush or only water for the last week or 2.


Nutrients are not stored in the calyxes (buds).
Nutrients are used up very quickly when they are transported around the plant, especially in the calyxes.
Nutrients are 'stored' in the roots, stem(s) and the leaves.
It takes a lot of overfeeding (the plant would be visibly damaged and probably beyond saving) to get a nutrient build up in the calyxes.

The dry & cure is what determines the quality of the final product.
Do it wrong and you can end up ruining your crop.
Do it right and you can enhance flavour, odour, appeal etc.


----------



## mandy1 (Jul 23, 2012)

name just one crop that gets flushed prior to harvest- tobacco?-no, grapes?-no, tea?-no, tomatoes or other veggies?-no


----------



## pharmacoping (Jul 23, 2012)

Ringsixty said:


> I dont flush... Grow under SCROG
> I cut off nutes about 2 weeks before harvest.
> No lights 48 hrs before harvest



yep, when following a professionally mixed nutrient system, one will notice that the charts will show a decreasing amount of nutrients as the flowering schedule comes to an end. Usually starting at mid flowercycle, the decrease generally ends with zero nutrients in the chain.....If following the directions, no "formal flushing needs to occur", unless of course you're one of those who pack in the poison(PK boosters) for profit., then a formal flush is necessary. 



That is called flushing, by any other name, still flushing.


----------



## Rumple (Jul 23, 2012)

Some folks like the taste of unflushed bud.


----------



## Huel Perkins (Jul 23, 2012)

pharmacoping said:


> yep, when following a professionally mixed nutrient system, one will notice that the charts will show a decreasing amount of nutrients as the flowering schedule comes to an end. Usually starting at mid flowercycle, the decrease generally ends with zero nutrients in the chain.....If following the directions, no "formal flushing needs to occur", unless of course you're one of those who pack in the poison(PK boosters) for profit., then a formal flush is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is called flushing, by any other name, still flushing.


Nothing you described is flushing, its just proper feeding. With proper feeding you're giving the plant only what it needs and you'll never end up with "zero nutrients". When people flush plants they are trying to rid the reservoir or grow medium of all nutrients right down to 0 ppm or as close to it as possible, which will starve the plant and hinder growth in its final stages. The only time you ever want to actually flush is when you have over fed the plant, with proper feeding there is no need to flush. 

The final week before harvest my nutrient solution is down to about 400 ppm, no flush needed.


----------



## Topo (Jul 24, 2012)

Thanks to all that replied. Even though opinions differ, we are all trying to enhance the quality of cultivated bud. It's all good, and eventually the truth comes out.

When I was growing outdoors back in the 70's (we had shit for lights), the one trick that a lot of growers believed in was pulling the plant up (not all the way), but just enough to "shock" the plant. Supposedly, the plant feels death befalls it, and it sends more resins to the colas as an emergency response to save the plant long enough to be pollinated and drop seeds.

That didn't last long!


----------



## ImAgIaNtInDaGrOwWoRlD (Jul 24, 2012)

This debate has and will go on as long as ganja exists. Do what ever you like. 
Ive experimented ALOT with this. Flushing and Extended Dark periods.
I use FFOF soil.
I was growing more indica dominant plants that could handle heavy feedings so I used all Fox Farms Nutes and the Tri-Pack of bud boosters.
I would flush for the last 14 days - every 4 days, and get perfect smoking buds with a pure taste.

This time Im growing sativa dominant plants in their 5th week of flower and havent fed them 1x. I just give them Cal-Mag+ and PH the water to 6.0....I will only give them 1 flush.... 2 weeks before harvest.... to get out any salt or junk in the soil and give straight water thats not ph balanced until harvest. 

Its mostly strain dependant. *BCBD Purps *has to be flushed with straight water for the last 2 weeks and cured for atleast a month if its gonna smoke in a joint without black ash and charcoal chunks falling off the end of the joint. But hands down..... their is NO TASTIER weed on the planet that can beat BCBD Purps done right.

*Great White Shark* increases trichome production by 20% if put in the dark for 3 days and flushed with ice-cold water to "shock the roots" which forces the plant to push out every last drop of resin to protect itself. Its all up to the grower, strain, and style of grow.


----------



## pharmacoping (Jul 24, 2012)

Huel Perkins said:


> Nothing you described is flushing, its just proper feeding. With proper feeding you're giving the plant only what it needs and you'll never end up with "zero nutrients". When people flush plants they are trying to rid the reservoir or grow medium of all nutrients right down to 0 ppm or as close to it as possible, which will starve the plant and hinder growth in its final stages. The only time you ever want to actually flush is when you have over fed the plant, with proper feeding there is no need to flush.
> 
> The final week before harvest my nutrient solution is down to about 400 ppm, no flush needed.


exactly !
I think we're on the same track dude, and it's all good !!


----------



## DelQ (Jul 24, 2012)

Nutrients are not stored in the calyxes (buds).
Nutrients are used up very quickly when they are transported around the plant, especially in the calyxes.
Nutrients are 'stored' in the roots, stem(s) and the leaves.
It takes a lot of overfeeding (the plant would be visibly damaged and probably beyond saving) to get a nutrient build up in the calyxes.

The dry & cure is what determines the quality of the final product.
Do it wrong and you can end up ruining your crop.
Do it right and you can enhance flavour, odour, appeal etc.[/QUOTE]

Well I don't know about this.. 

1. Nutrients are 'stored' in the roots, stem(s) and the leaves. Not in the buds,, Mmmm 

Nuts are stored in the in buds to.. not just in stem's and roots.. I know its not talked about, for obvious reasons, everybody likes to get good light on there buds, why cause they absorb light not as much as the leaves but They still absorb light, and distribute that energy Light, to feed itself.. They need food for this Photo senses. There is not one part of your plant that does not absorb nuts... You can't use steroids on your plant for 4-5 months, and expect to get all of it out with a 2 week flush. flushing might make the weed taste better. But the nuts are still in the plant.. Just ask any farmer that grows corn or strawberries for a living... That's why great soil is important not great nuts.. The best tasting plants with any controversy wether it be corn grapes avocados, comes from good fresh soil.. That"s why in grocery stores here in Colorado will have steroid fruit will be one price. and organic produce another price.. Its the same way with weed, there is steroid weed. and then organic..

I bet in the the future dispensaries will have 2 sections one organic and one for steroids..


----------



## k0ijn (Jul 24, 2012)

DelQ said:


> Well I don't know about this..
> 
> 1. Nutrients are 'stored' in the roots, stem(s) and the leaves. Not in the buds,, Mmmm
> 
> ...



What? I'm not quite sure what your point is or how you came to the conclusion.
Please provide the scientific information you have on how nutrients are stored in the calyxes.

I have linked to a scientific study (conducted by educated scientists) on nutrient storage in plants, in a different thread on the topic of pre-harvest flushing, it's readily available for you to read.

It explains rather well how and where nutrients are stored in plants and how quickly these nutrients are used up.
Nutrients are mainly stored in the roots and stems, with a somewhat significant storage in the leaves as well.
I'd like to stress that we're talking about _storage_ here, not usage or where nutrients are transported to/are used.

It also explains how yield relates to deficiencies, abundances and critical (optimum) feeding schedules.
If you over- or underfeed you will end up with a worse yield than you could have had you stayed @ critical feeding levels.
It also reveals how the nutrient levels will be in percentages, in the various areas of the plant with regards to deficiency, abundance and critical feeding.

Why are you talking about photosynthesis (I assume that's what you meant)? 
Steroids? Why are you talking about using steroids and flushing those steroids out?


----------



## chrishydro (Jul 24, 2012)

Yes flush but I never got the darkness thing at all.


----------



## devolv (Jul 25, 2012)

If i switch from synthetic based nuts to all organic for the last couple weeks while I use a flushing agent will that work effectivly to flush AND not starve the plants? because I was under the impression that its unneccesary to flush with organics? Its a recirculating system so I was assuming that while the final flush does its thing the BioThrive bloom will do its organic thing and I can get the best of both worlds. 

Yes I know there are a lot of views on not flushing, but i'm not ready to try that until i've finished doing my own taste test. which I am. but in the mean time I would like advice on what i'm currently attempting. 

Also does anyone know if you don't need to ph balance biothrive bloom?


----------



## reggaerican (Jul 25, 2012)

MrMeanGreen said:


> Would you stop feeding a pregnant woman 2 months before her due date???
> 
> No, so why would you stop feeding your plants for the last quater of it's flower (fattening) period.


great post.... And I totally agree. The last two weeks is when you should be boosting the crap out of her.. I do believe that a final flush product should be used to get all the unused nutes out tho


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 25, 2012)

Most street smokers don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to weed. As long as it stinks to high heaven and is covered in THC, they are happy as a pig in shit and will come back for more. It is your more discerning smoker that will be able to taste and critique your weed. 

A good cure works wonders but I aint selling weed thats 1-2 month cured, why would I? Do I get any extra money for my extra work..... No.

I yeild around 2 Kg a pop, am I gonna keep that in my house for months to cure and have another grow on, not on your nelly, the feds would throw the book at me if they popped round for a cup of tea and a biscuit.
I flush nothing although I do give just water every 3-4 feeds. 60+ oz goes in a week and they love it, the rest goes into cure for percy. Essentially it is only experienced grower and dealers that know the difference in quality.


----------



## reggaerican (Jul 25, 2012)

MrMeanGreen said:


> Most street smokers don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to weed. As long as it stinks to high heaven and is covered in THC, they are happy as a pig in shit and will come back for more. It is your more discerning smoker that will be able to taste and critique your weed.
> 
> A good cure works wonders but I aint selling weed thats 1-2 month cured, why would I? Do I get any extra money for my extra work..... No.
> 
> ...


Once again great post.. And your right! for the commercial grrower with looks and smell it will sell all the same, but for the connoisseur grower like myself the flush is a must.


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 25, 2012)

reggaerican said:


> great post.... And I totally agree. The last two weeks is when you should be boosting the crap out of her.. I do believe that a final flush product should be used to get all the unused nutes out tho


I used the pregnant woman analogy coz my mrs is 8 months pregnant, and eating like a horse. The analogy is actually very true and liken to weed, underweight and underfed women give birth to underweight babies. That said big fat birds dont exactly give birth to 15lb monsters.


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 25, 2012)

reggaerican said:


> Once again great post.. And your right! for the commercial grrower with looks and smell it will sell all the same, but for the connoisseur grower like myself the flush is a must.


Not neccessarily my friend, a well cured smoke will have no evidence that it wasn't flushed. If ya ever in the London area (c;


----------



## reggaerican (Jul 25, 2012)

MrMeanGreen said:


> I used the pregnant woman analogy coz my mrs is 8 months pregnant, and eating like a horse. The analogy is actually very true and liken to weed, underweight and underfed women give birth to underweight babies. That said big fat birds dont exactly give birth to 15lb monsters.


Hey congrats on the baby MrMeangreen. My good friend Rene from this site just had a baby boy also.. Tiss the season I guess. Boy or girl? well whatever it is smother that little sucker with love they grow like weeds..


----------



## reggaerican (Jul 25, 2012)

MrMeanGreen said:


> Not neccessarily my friend, a well cured smoke will have no evidence that it wasn't flushed. If ya ever in the London area (c;


that sounds like a chalange to me..LOL 
so how long of a cure are you talking about? maybe I will do a little test come next harvest, flush all but one of my plants and see if I can tell the difference..


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 25, 2012)

reggaerican said:


> Hey congrats on the baby MrMeangreen. My good friend Rene from this site just had a baby boy also.. Tiss the season I guess. Boy or girl? well whatever it is smother that little sucker with love they grow like weeds..


LOL. Cheers matey but this is boy number 5, I don't do girls (apart from impregnating them), they are nothing but trouble, even the grown up ones.


----------



## reggaerican (Jul 25, 2012)

five boys get down man.. or should I say get up? heck sounds like you spend way too much time in bed.. lol
and I hear you bout them girls I have a 16yo.


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 25, 2012)

reggaerican said:


> five boys get down man.. or should I say get up? heck sounds like you spend way too much time in bed.. lol
> and I hear you bout them girls I have a 16yo.


I have to ask and sorry to OP for swerving of course........ What did you say or do when ya 12-13 daughter wants G-strings, short skirts etc. I would just lock her in a cupboard till she was at least 21.


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 25, 2012)

reggaerican said:


> that sounds like a chalange to me..LOL
> so how long of a cure are you talking about? maybe I will do a little test come next harvest, flush all but one of my plants and see if I can tell the difference..


If I am honest, most of mine doesn't last much more than a month in cure b4 it's gone. I have some good friends who only come to me and demand my percy. LOL


----------



## reggaerican (Jul 25, 2012)

MrMeanGreen said:


> I have to ask and sorry to OP for swerving of course........ What did you say or do when ya 12-13 daughter wants G-strings, short skirts etc. I would just lock her in a cupboard till she was at least 21.


well luckily for me my daughter didnt take that road.. she is quite the little angel. that just might be cause her 17yo brother would beat the shit out of her or any guy that tries to get near her... lol daddy has the easy job..


----------



## ddimebag (Jul 25, 2012)

MrMeanGreen said:


> Would you stop feeding a pregnant woman 2 months before her due date???
> 
> No, so why would you stop feeding your plants for the last quater of it's flower (fattening) period.


lolololol this is THE most retarded comment that I have seen on RIU so far...because OBVIOUSLY plants and people are identical in structure and needs...


----------



## ddimebag (Jul 25, 2012)

oh, yeah, for the OP: I water with plain water the last 10 days, and keep them in the dark for 1-3 days before chopping. Also, I cut the main stem first, and IN THE DARK. I read that sugars are transported to the roots for storage during dark hours, and transported back to the leaves to be used as an energy source when the light comes on. Since sugars are unpleasant and unhealthy to smoke, I cut the plant before they have a chance to migrate back to the leaves and buds. Don't know if this is actually the case, and if there is a significant difference, but it's not much extra effort, so I do it.


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 25, 2012)

*dimebag :- lolololol this is THE most retarded comment that I have seen on RIU so far...because OBVIOUSLY plants and people are identical in structure and needs... 

*Oh fuck me, heres me thinking we were the same as plants, best stop feeding my kids on superthrive and canna boost. I was hoping it would make my kids at least 6 ft tall with big muscles. Thank god you were around, I will flush them immediatley.

Oh but hold on..... is there not a basic concept that applies to all forms of life. Do all forms of life not need nutrients, water, sunlight etc? All forms of life (babies) take from the mother , to the mothers detriment at times. So iirelavent of what the neutrients are, the concept is the same. Now who's the fuking retard.


----------



## k0ijn (Jul 25, 2012)

ddimebag said:


> oh, yeah, for the OP: I water with plain water the last 10 days, and keep them in the dark for 1-3 days before chopping. Also, I cut the main stem first, and IN THE DARK. I read that sugars are transported to the roots for storage during dark hours, and transported back to the leaves to be used as an energy source when the light comes on. Since sugars are unpleasant and unhealthy to smoke, I cut the plant before they have a chance to migrate back to the leaves and buds. Don't know if this is actually the case, and if there is a significant difference, but it's not much extra effort, so I do it.


Sugars which are produced as a result of photosynthesis are stored in the roots as starch. This process doesn't have anything to do with dark hours.
These sugars don't 'migrate back to the buds'. They are used when needed. 

Where did you read the information? Link?


----------



## medical/420 (Jul 25, 2012)

My plants get ONLY WATER for the last 2-3 weeks . I stop feeding at week 6 in flower. and at the end I leave them in the dark for 3 days. and the resins just pour out


----------



## ddimebag (Jul 25, 2012)

MrMeanGreen said:


> *dimebag :- lolololol this is THE most retarded comment that I have seen on RIU so far...because OBVIOUSLY plants and people are identical in structure and needs...
> 
> *Oh fuck me, heres me thinking we were the same as plants, best stop feeding my kids on superthrive and canna boost. I was hoping it would make my kids at least 6 ft tall with big muscles. Thank god you were around, I will flush them immediatley.
> 
> ...



If you DON"T think people are the same as plants, then why compare plants to people? The concept of nutrition may be similar, but saying that stressing a person and stressing a plant is the same thing is just absurd. If you don't eat for a month, you will probably die. Newsflash: if you don't feed a cannabis plant for a month, guess what, it will survive just fine, given that other conditions are acceptable. It won't achieve its full potential, but it will live. Again, you can't compare a plant to a person when it comes to energy requirements. Also, the "basic concepts that apply to all forms of life" are so basic that they are completely irrelevant in this discussion. Just because all living things need nucleotides to build their DNA doesn't mean that they all need equal amounts of nutrition at identical stages of life. Life on this planet is too diverse to make generalizations like "if you won't starve a pregnant lady then you shouldn't starve your plant".


----------



## ddimebag (Jul 25, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> Sugars which are produced as a result of photosynthesis are stored in the roots as starch. This process doesn't have anything to do with dark hours.
> These sugars don't 'migrate back to the buds'. They are used when needed.
> 
> Where did you read the information? Link?


Good question, I will look that up later this evening...busy now, but I will definitely look it up and post a link or two. I think one of the sources was here on RIU, but I believe I saw a more reliable article somewhere...


----------



## calicat (Jul 25, 2012)

Topo said:


> I just wanted to get an idea where our peeps stand on these two topics. I am from the old school, but 'want to stay current with new discoveries.
> 
> Thank you.


I flush about 10-14 days prior to harvest. I leave my plants that are about to be harvested in complete darkness for a period of three days. The plants begin to think they are dying therefore they produce more crystal.


----------



## DelQ (Jul 25, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> What? I'm not quite sure what your point is or how you came to the conclusion.
> Please provide the scientific information you have on how nutrients are stored in the calyxes.
> 
> I have linked to a scientific study (conducted by educated scientists) on nutrient storage in plants, in a different thread on the topic of pre-harvest flushing, it's readily available for you to read.
> ...



Sorry bro I don't write or spell very good.. Many props to you for your ability to take pen to paper.. I do mean that...

I'm just a guy who has my AG status for the last 17 years,, I can't give you scientific data. But I can give you common since side of this..

Everybody knows, A scientific study is only as good as the company that pays for it.... I can show studies by scientist that tell you Cigs are not bad for you.. So you get my point.. So the question is who paid for the study that you are link to ?

So I believe If you feed plants (Nuts) or as I call them (Steroids) for there whole life, your not going to get them out of the whole plant with a 2 week flush.. regardless of some scientific study. What you put into the plant becomes part of the plant. This includes the Buds. Like I said its what I believe, after living in a agricultural community for the last 17 years.. Like I said before here in Colorado in the produce department they have two sections one that has produce that was grown with (steroids) and the other they call (organic) The Organic section of produce you are going to pay at least 25 percent more for.. This is at Safeway.. so see my point.. 

Now what do you think the difference is in produce they call organic or regular produce ? Plants that are grown with roids grow quick and big no doubt, but its not any better, but it is faster.. Now every Farmer I know with huge commercial operation, will always always use ever drop of water they can use even if its not theres... Ya our water commissioner is busy.. lmao!! 

So The OP wants great product, so he should go all natural if its practical. Or go to one of the expert growers on this web sight and follow is program exactly. 

In the next 3-5 years you will see a organic section and a regular section at dispensaries,, right now we have organic beef vegetables and fruit why not have true organic weed,, in the next few post a guy makes a great point it doesn't matter to the guy on the street that needs meds,, if it smells good and he gets high he buying that shit... LMAO, Growers should be able to grow how ever they want , That's why were here to try to be better growers...


----------



## k0ijn (Jul 26, 2012)

DelQ said:


> Sorry bro I don't write or spell very good.. Many props to you for your ability to take pen to paper.. I do mean that...
> 
> I'm just a guy who has my AG status for the last 17 years,, I can't give you scientific data. But I can give you common since side of this..
> 
> ...



Scientific research is carried out with stringent rules and regulations.
I'm not saying all research is to be trusted fully but if it's done properly it's certainly ascertained as fact in the scientific community.
I have not linked to pseudo-scientific research.

Organic growers still use nutrients.
Nutrients are the same at the molecular level, a Nitride (Nitrogen ion) is a nitride.
That goes for organic and chemically produced nutrients alike.

Of course there are differences between organic nutrients and chemical nutrients.
But when it comes to nutrient transportation, storage and usage it's the same basic science.

We have organic sections where I live, it's nothing new really, it's been around for 30 years.

My point is that the way a cannabis plant feeds and the way it processes, stores/allocates the nutrients is the same across the board.
Attaining an abundance of nutrients in the calyxes is near impossible, since the roots, leaves and stem(s) would shrivel and die before you would get those levels.
Now of course different species use and allocate nutrients in different ways, depending on climate, the age of the plant and most predominately; depending on the season. 
Nutrients like Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium are used up almost immediately to promote growth.
Mainly sugars are stored (produce by photosynthesis). They are stored in the roots.

An abundance (over-feeding) and/or a deficiency (under-feeding) is detrimental to any plant.
Keeping a critical level of nutrients in the solution regardless of method (soil, hydro, aero) is key to promote optimal growth.


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 27, 2012)

I try not to engage with ranting muppets like you but i just couldn't resist.



ddimebag said:


> If you DON"T think people are the same as plants, then why compare plants to people? The concept of nutrition may be similar, but saying that stressing a person and stressing a plant is the same thing is just absurd. *WRONG. Whilst the stresses and consequennce of stress differs, humans are effected by stress. Increased heart rate, lack of appetite, agitation, loss of sleep, nuff said*.If you don't eat for a month, you will probably die. Newsflash: if you don't feed a cannabis plant for a month, guess what, it will survive just fine, given that other conditions are acceptable. *WRONG AGAIN. Both plants and humans can survive on water alone until available nutrints have been ingested. No water and no food, both will die and if your gonna be a smart arse and say humidity will keep the plant alive then it has a water source.* It won't achieve its full potential, but it will live. Again, you can't compare a plant to a person when it comes to energy requirements. Also, the "basic concepts that apply to all forms of life" are so basic that they are completely irrelevant in this discussion. *A pregnant woman requires an extra 500 calories to maintain a healthy pregnancy, anything less and the feutus will, like a parasite take from the mother to the mothers detriment. What happens if you don't give the plant waht it requires to flower.... It starts to ingest itself, use its reserves then begin to show defficiencies.* Just because all living things need nucleotides to build their DNA doesn't mean that they all need equal amounts of nutrition at identical stages of life. *Here, you are right.... to a degree. They do not use the same nutrients, it does demonstrate that without key nutrients at key stage in both human and plant life, abnormalities and deficiencies will arise with loss of potential which is my point entirely.* Life on this planet is too diverse to make generalizations like "if you won't starve a pregnant lady then you shouldn't starve your plant".


*Wrong about the sugar storage, and a shitty understanding of the world around you. Life is not black and white and all forms of life follow the same basic rules.......*


----------



## reggaerican (Jul 27, 2012)

haha thank you...


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 27, 2012)

reggaerican said:


> haha thank you...


What can I say.... He needs his balls chopping, like a dog it will stop him being so aggressive.


----------



## reggaerican (Jul 27, 2012)

no i hear ya.. there is no reason for all that. hes just a little high strung thats all..


----------



## jvo (Jul 27, 2012)

I think your both morons, even the best scientists only have the faintest grasp on life. You seem to think you have it all figured out. Also comparing it to a pregnant women is absolutely retarded. If you didn't know this big buds are not really a good natural surviving trait of the plants bud size in nature is almost irrelevant, the same goes for resin production the plants only need a little in nature. We have bred these plants just like people breed cats and dogs to get the traits we want. Maybe you could consider it a good analogy if you were growing for the seeds.


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Jul 28, 2012)

jvo said:


> I think your both morons, even the best scientists only have the faintest grasp on life. You seem to think you have it all figured out. Also comparing it to a pregnant women is absolutely retarded. If you didn't know this big buds are not really a good natural surviving trait of the plants bud size in nature is almost irrelevant, the same goes for resin production the plants only need a little in nature. We have bred these plants just like people breed cats and dogs to get the traits we want. Maybe you could consider it a good analogy if you were growing for the seeds.


Silly silly me. Heres me thinking that flower production was realative to seed quantity and therefore a good natural surival trait. Really really sorry. On a second note.... Did I refer to resin production..... NO.


----------



## SmokingBull (Jul 29, 2012)

What is the rationale behind turning lights out for a few days before harvest? And how do you "turn the lights out" on the plants you're going to harvest yet allow the other plants to continue as they need (I'm assuming most run a "perpetual garden" where only say 1/4 of the plants come down at a time...)


----------



## BA142 (Jul 29, 2012)

SmokingBull said:


> What is the rationale behind turning lights out for a few days before harvest?


To trick the plant into thinking winter is coming and therefore producing more trichs.....

I've done it both ways and I don't notice a difference. I'll give my plants one good flushing 2 weeks before harvest then it's just plain water till harvest. I always chop before the lights come on.


----------



## imchucky666 (Aug 17, 2012)

ImAgIaNtInDaGrOwWoRlD said:


> This debate has and will go on as long as ganja exists. Do what ever you like.
> Ive experimented ALOT with this. Flushing and Extended Dark periods.
> I use FFOF soil.
> I was growing more indica dominant plants that could handle heavy feedings so I used all Fox Farms Nutes and the Tri-Pack of bud boosters.
> ...


Hey, You're in Cali! I recognize that sign...... passed it many many times


----------



## Huel Perkins (Aug 17, 2012)

Here's a thread I started to express my view on flushing.

https://www.rollitup.org/michigan-patients/554323-why-flush.html


----------



## Topo (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm getting more hip to the flushing idea, 'not so sure about extended darkness. I'll smoke conventional AND lights-out-bud!


----------



## whatisnow (Oct 23, 2012)

Right guys I'm a complete newbie. Basically I was just going to flush because that's what I've been told to do. Now reading this makes me wonder if I need to because there are some compelling arguments not to.

One thing though I would point out. I'm using hydro and bought HESI nutes as they came recommend as an allin1 for a first time hydro grow. These guys probably have a whole R&D department making sure their nutes gets the best out of plant. They also are a business and it's in their best interest to make sure you use their product so you buy more. On their feeding schedule they recommend flushing? 

http://www.hesi.nl/usa/popups/11.htm

Surely if there wasn't actually a benefit they wouldn't recommend it because not flushing would mean more people were using more of their product. I can't find anything based in science it all seems to be opinion. Can anyone point me in the right direction?


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 23, 2012)

whatisnow said:


> Right guys I'm a complete newbie. Basically I was just going to flush because that's what I've been told to do. Now reading this makes me wonder if I need to because there are some compelling arguments not to.
> 
> One thing though I would point out. I'm using hydro and bought HESI nutes as they came recommend as an allin1 for a first time hydro grow. These guys probably have a whole R&D department making sure their nutes gets the best out of plant. They also are a business and it's in their best interest to make sure you use their product so you buy more. On their feeding schedule they recommend flushing?
> 
> ...


Pre-harvest flushing is a myth. It does not do what it pretends it does or what people proclaim it does.
It would take me hours of typing to repeat everything that I and others have written regarding pre-harvest flushing.
I have posted a lot of scientific information, evidence from research, studies and journals.
Pre-harvest flushing has been thoroughly discredited by science and by people who have done side-by-side comparisons.
All if this information is still on these forums and can be found with a simple search.


Suffice to say that pre-harvest flushing does nothing of the things it says it does.
The easiest fact to understand:

Nutrients are not stored in the calyxes. There literally is nothing to 'flush out'.

Those who believe in pre-harvest flushing make a lot of arguments but have no proof, no scientifically backed up evidence.
And the fact is that this is science, namely biology & chemistry.
You can't go wrong following scientifically proven methods.
There's a reason why we use science to determine the best way of doing 'stuff'.

In the end it comes down to whether you understand the difference between facts and beliefs.


----------



## Rumple (Oct 24, 2012)

Preharvest flushing is a must in my grow room. I am also growing in a hydroponic system and it comes out way better after flushing. Tried it both ways and it works without a doubt. Go with what the scientist making your nutrients recommend. My wife can do a blind taste test of the two and pick out the non-flushed bud ten out of ten times. I still have a jar of non-flushed bud sitting around. She is the myth-buster I guess. Look at my harvest and tell me I'm doing it all wrong.


Let the rock throwing begin....


----------



## notaskunkboffin (Oct 24, 2012)

even with lights out coukd u still have high humidity r leave fans on thx


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 24, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Preharvest flushing is a must in my grow room. I am also growing in a hydroponic system and it comes out way better after flushing. Tried it both ways and it works without a doubt. Go with what the scientist making your nutrients recommend. My wife can do a blind taste test of the two and pick out the non-flushed bud ten out of ten times. I still have a jar of non-flushed bud sitting around. She is the myth-buster I guess. Look at my harvest and tell me I'm doing it all wrong.
> 
> 
> Let the rock throwing begin....



The only thing he forgot to mention is that most experienced growers on this and other cannabis forums disagree with him.


We have all done tests, and most people don't see any difference. 
And if they do see a difference it's in the size of the harvest (pre-harvest flushing causes a nutrient deficiency).

There's no need to continue discussing a settled issue.


----------



## Rumple (Oct 24, 2012)

Ummm, look at the poll results, and relax a bit.

I find most good growers here and other sites agree with flushing, even well known authors will tell you to do it.. Never seen any real science from you. Do your own test like I did (it will help you evolve). Some folks like the taste of unflushed weed and I respect them.
Most good growers have an open mind and good weed tends to make folks friendly.
Got to love what you are doing.
Peace, R.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 24, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Ummm, look at the poll results, and relax a bit.
> 
> I find most good growers here and other sites agree with flushing, even well known authors will tell you to do it.. Never seen any real science from you. Do your own test like I did (it will help you evolve). Some folks like the taste of unflushed weed and I respect them.
> Most good growers have an open mind and good weed tends to make folks friendly.
> ...



Who knows how many newbies voted in that poll. It doesn't mean anything.
It wasn't an exclusive poll for experienced growers.

Never seen any real science? I've posted research papers, studies and several books written by acclaimed scientists.
All I can do is to appeal to logic and reason.
I realize it's impossible to argue with you since you don't value logic, reason or evidence.
Luckily for us, your opinion doesn't matter because it's true whether you believe in it or not.

The fact that you choose to ignore every reference and source I have posted is just ridiculous, because you are presenting yourself as a liar. The information is here on this very forum, easy to find, and in several threads.

And those authors you mention have been discredited by several scientific sources, the fact that you think it's fact just because it's written down by some random layman doesn't prove anything.

The evidence has been presented and you cannot even acknowledge it's there, such a rigid and ignorant view on the subject does no one any good and is frankly just a waste of time.


You always say that stuff about being friendly, which is quite hypocritical with the level of passive aggressiveness you sprout.
You don't even smoke weed so I find it rather amusing that you even think you know what properly grown weed tastes like or feels like or that you can know that all those who don't pre-harvest flush are smoking bad tasting weed. 
The assumptions you use are so removed from reality it feels a bit like trolling.

You state no trolling in your signature yet you troll this forum every day, long live hypocrisy.


----------



## scroglodyte (Oct 24, 2012)

both are fairy tales.....................flushing and dark period


----------



## Huel Perkins (Oct 24, 2012)

K0ijn pretty much covered everything I wanted to say...


----------



## lahadaextranjera (Oct 24, 2012)

scroglodyte said:


> both are fairy tales.....................flushing and dark period



I know, I invented both, yours truly, The Fairy !! (La Hada)


----------



## Rumple (Oct 24, 2012)

Keep looking at my harvest and telling me I am doing it all wrong. I would rather see what goes inside a rolling paper rather then a scientific study paper done by folks who don't grow Marijuana. My best advice to Koijn: just relax, buy some good bud and laugh at the whole argument about flushing. I want to have a good time here and not be so militant about growing god's herb..

Not agreeing with Koijn is now, trolling? Trolling is calling names and belittling others with a different opinion. I respect all the growers who don't flush. I did not find the need to flush while growing in organic soil (Vic's Super Soil). Just respect others and have fun with the dialog (tiz why we are here). I have nothing but respect for you and love your grow pictures, please don't take my opposing views on small matters as hostile. It is obvious we both can grow weed using either method. 

I see nothing wrong with supplying medical marijuana free of charge to the sick. Sorry I can't partake, but who in here could take a jar of my harvest and tell if it was any good?

My brotha.

A picture of me doing it all wrong:


----------



## Huel Perkins (Oct 24, 2012)

Get over yourself.....

He never said you ruined your crop by flushing, his point was that you're not improving it by flushing and potentially holding it a back in its final days.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 24, 2012)

Huel Perkins said:


> Get over yourself.....
> 
> He never said you ruined your crop by flushing, his point was that you're not improving it by flushing and potentially holding it a back in its final days.


I saw the post before he edited it out but tbh I can't be arsed to waste any more of my time on this.

Thanks for sticking up for me anyway, well, sticking up for science tbf


----------



## mike91sr (Oct 24, 2012)

Rumple said:


> I would rather see what goes inside a rolling paper rather then a scientific study paper done by folks who don't grow Marijuana.


This thought process is exactly what holds back this entire community. Not knocking your growing skills, they're most likely far above mine, but I trust peer-reviewed scientific studies with quantitative results that actually demonstrate and measure the precise changes within the variable chosen, and fail to understand how somebody can read it and deny it. Then turn around and accept as undeniable fact when someone _thinks_ their crop turned out better one way than the other without even having a control(the most basic necessity to prove a hypothesis) or single quantitative result, especially when the cannabis-specific argument is brought up. Just demonstrates the person's willingness to come up with any excuse they can to believe that the science being brought forward somehow doesn't apply to them. Seems to be the status quo in this hobby though. 

Either way, keep doing what you believe works for you. Thats really all that matters in the end, I just prefer to have myths either debunked or substantiated before being claimed as true. No personal interest in proving one way or another as its ignorant to NOT benefit from something to just continue believing you're right no matter what, I just follow the facts. As of now, the only claim being substantiated in the science world is what k0jin has already summed up. And until something disproves it, that is what stands as fact, outside the cannabis forums of course.


----------



## Rumple (Oct 24, 2012)

I'm glad you don't think flushing will ruin my crop (never wrote that), just want to have some cool dialog with other growers, nothing to get mad about. I like the conversations as long as we don't get into name calling. Please make your point and tell us about the tests you have done and how your grow is going.

I test stuff all the time, I use controls and basic science to form my own hypotheses. True, that small test don't amount to solid facts, but it is a start. I lend my grow room out to test products and publish the outcome. It is very difficult to remain unbiased and to keep to the side of the results (harder than you think). Please don't take offense to my opinions (or spelling), they are not an attack on you or others who believe as you do.
I'm sure we can find a way to disagree and remain friendly.


----------



## whatisnow (Oct 24, 2012)

guys I'm all for science and agree that if there is scientific evidence to back it up I will fall into this category... hence why I believe the world is not flat. I am genuinely interested in reading any documentation to support flushing/not flushing. Even if it's plant biology 101. Can anyone refer me to something please? I have 2 small nft trays and at the rate this is going I will be flushing one and not the other haha


----------



## Topo (Oct 24, 2012)

Well, I harvested all my plants and all were flushed. The taste was very mild, so it's possible that any residual nutes might have been purged out. I should have experimented (flushed some, but not others) so that I could compare, but once I got motivated to do it, I flushed them all. I did not kill the lights though.

The Pineapple Express came out great.... stoned and racy in the beginning....and nice mellow smooth landing hours later!


----------



## m420p (Oct 24, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Preharvest flushing is a must in my grow room. I am also growing in a hydroponic system and it comes out way better after flushing. Tried it both ways and it works without a doubt. Go with what the scientist making your nutrients recommend. My wife can do a blind taste test of the two and pick out the non-flushed bud ten out of ten times. I still have a jar of non-flushed bud sitting around. She is the myth-buster I guess. Look at my harvest and tell me I'm doing it all wrong.
> 
> 
> Let the rock throwing begin....


Exactly, I have a strain I'm growing for the third time, the first time harvest time ended up sneaking up on me and I didn't flush, second time around in the same room with same nutes, I flushed for 1 week using a AN Final Phase and the difference was ridiculous as far as taste went. The biggest difference for me was the non-flushed bud would not stay lit as well and would be hard to smoke in joints or keep lit in a bowl without lighting it every time. Also, you can see the difference in the ash, non-flushed will be black while flushed will be gray/white, that's coming from a old timer I respect a lot and has one of the biggest green thumbs I know.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 25, 2012)

First of all, I don't quite understand why you have liked posts of people calling you out on your false statements and logical fallacies Rumple but that is your own decision.
We don't agree at all, and it's clear for everyone to see why.




whatisnow said:


> guys I'm all for science and agree that if there is scientific evidence to back it up I will fall into this category... hence why I believe the world is not flat. I am genuinely interested in reading any documentation to support flushing/not flushing. Even if it's plant biology 101. Can anyone refer me to something please? I have 2 small nft trays and at the rate this is going I will be flushing one and not the other haha



All the information is out there, you can find it with a simple search of the forums.

But just to rest the case I've gathered up the points and links in one post (this is quotes of what I've written):




... I find it funny how you can still have unanswered questions.
Have you read all my posts?

The big debate in this thread is about _pre-harvest flushing_.
Not about leaching in general (leaching is flushing but is NOT the same as pre-harvest flushing), which has been explained by all of us against pre-harvest flushing many times, can be useful.
Leaching in general is thought of as to be:

Correcting grow medium errors.
Clearing salt buildup. 
And just a general error corrector for solutions or medium in both hydro and soil.

Leaching is used by most growers, because problems tend to occur, even in the most perfect setups.


What we (especially Harrekin, SirLance and myself) in this thread who are against pre-harvest flushing state, is that pre-harvest flushing has not been proven to work for any of the reasons pre-harvest flushers claim they do it.
Many people claim improved taste, odour, yield, less harsh bud, better burning bud, better ash (whiter, cleaner) etc. etc.
They claim all kinds of wondrous things, which are apparently all thanks to the pre-harvest flush.

Although people claim this, there is no proof for any of it.
There are anecdotes of what people have done, there are stories, there are stories from authors (such as Cervantes, who is known to take information from other writes / growers and post it in his books).

What I have posted in this thread is a scientific study on the nutrient storage in plants, particularly ryegrass.

The study is very comprehensive and explains rather well about how nutrients are stored, where they are stored and what happens with the plants when nutrient levels are too high or too low (abundance versus. deficiency).

I will post the image from the study again showing this:





This explains a lot about the points in the discussion about pre-harvest flushing / leaching.

The study says that "growth requirements are generally achieved before high concentrations are attained".
This is a very important point.
Especially since this is about abundance versus deficiency (the optimal is 'critical').

What this study shows quite clearly is that if you underfeed the plants, the yield is affected quite heavily.
But what it also shows is that nutrient stored in the various parts of the plants change a lot depending on the levels on nutrients available (strength of the solution).

Since most experienced growers don't overfeed their plants but keep well measured levels of PPM, they can stray close to the 'critical' nutrient supply, giving their plants as much as possible without overfeeding or underfeeding.

We are not saying overfeeding is correct, we're not talking about overfeeding neither, we feed our plants as close to the perfect ranges of PPM as possible.

The points of Gastanker was that since plants store nutrients, and nutrients are stored all over the plant (including in the calyxes (buds)) and causing a deficiency will cause the plant to 'eat away' at it's nutrient storage, you will end up with less nutrients in the calyxes, therefore less nutrients in your final product, and the smoke will be less harsh.
You will not end up with 'chem bud' so to speak.

This theory is unfounded, and the study I posted contradicts this theory.
First of all nutrients are not stored in the calyxes so there is nothing to flush out.
That in itself should be the end of it but I'll continue explaining.

The study says plants are high efficient, they can consume nutrients before high concentrations are attained, and since none of us against pre-harvest are overfeeding, we are not achieving 'too high'  concentrations of nutrients.
None of us have 'chem bud', we have all tried flushing, and not flushing, we don't see a difference.
We might even be receiving higher yields (which none of us have recorded however) if the study is the be correct (nutrient levels in the plant greatly affect yield).
What we do see a difference in is when you dry & cure properly versus dry & cure wrongly.
Drying & curing is probably the single most important step in any grow, it can cause mold, it can cause joy and it can be a pain in the arse.
But drying and curing is where your weed either ages like a good wine or crumbles, molds up and becomes useless.
Most people fail in drying & curing, many are somewhat successful, few master it.
I for sure don't master it, I'm trying to however, I invest in drying & curing equipment quite a lot and I am very careful.
That doesn't stop mold from setting in from time to time though, due to slipup or assistant error.


I'm not saying I don't want people to flush / leach their plants if they have problems with nutrient levels, salt buildup or anything else.
I'm not saying that you can't do what you want with your own grow either.

Where my problem lies, is with people trying to get other people to pre-harvest flush / leach.
When they claim all these myths about improvement of: taste, odour, colour, ash, harshness etc. it irritates me that people are just left to believe whatever this person writes, with no scientific backing, no factual information presented.

This is why I post these studies, why I try to show people the facts.
There are logical explanations to all those things.
Bad tasting weed, harshness and ash can all be improved by doing a proper dry & cure.
Most people have these problems because they do not know how to properly dry & cure.



To conclude, I don't believe in the surplus nutrients / substances theory regarding normally PPM'ed weed (as close to 'critical' as possible without overfeeding nor underfeeding) contra flushed / leached weed.
This is the theory brought up by Gastanker who said that you'll get a surplus of nutrients if you do not pre-harvest flush your plants.
There is absolutely no evidence for this, neither did Gastanker provide any evidence.

Plants which are in a deficiency do not 'eat away' the excess nutrients in calyxes, there are no excess nutrients or stored nutrients in the calyxes.
The plants basically eat themselves (yellowing leaves, withering leaves) to stay alive.
I don't believe that pre-harvest flushing / leaching your weed will give you better tasting, smelling and looking weed.
I don't believe you will yield more either.

In fact, I "believe" quite the opposite, I "believe" that keeping nutrient levels proper all the way to harvest, is the best way to get the most out of your plants humanly possible.
I mark believe because it in fact has nothing to do with belief.
It has to do with facts and whether you value logic, reason and evidence or not.
That is the great thing about science, you don't have to believe in it for it to be true.

When you pre-harvest flush / leach your plants, you starve your plants at the most important phase of growth, late blooom.
You cause deficiency, which leads to (if we are to believe science) decreased productivity.
And most importantly, all the myths about pre-harvest flushing / leaching seem to be false.
Not one scientific piece of evidence has been provided by the pro pre-harvest flushing people.
You cannot find one study that proves any of pre-harvest flushings proclaimed positives.



Just to sum up with some references and sources:

*Books & Publications:*

Marijuana Chemistry;
Genetics, Processing and Potency

Cannabis and Cannabinoids:
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Potential

Plant nutrition - from genetic engineering to field practice.


*Research and testing:*

montanabiotech.com

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/



I use sciencedirect.com and ncbi.nlm.nih.gov to look up publications.


There are *a lot *more references and source I could link to/quote/name.
But it would be a hell of a job naming them all.
I just named some of the most respected (peer reviewed scientific publications only) ones here, you can find loads more by searching on ncbi, sciencedirect or google in fact.


----------



## akula (Oct 25, 2012)

Oh the flushing debate again. Flushers, keep doing what your doing, keep buying the new and improved flush serum, keep ignoring science and plant biology and do it on great faith because that is all there is, faith. The flushing evangelist will never be open to facts because they have done the taste test and believe. Why bother with science when my buddy didn't flush and we got some nasty shit that wouldn't burn with a blowtorch? Truth, who really needs it?

Anyways while we are on the subject, anyone know the best Kool-Aide favor to feed my bud for some fruity flavor? Ya science!


----------



## mr. green thumb 01 (Oct 25, 2012)

Hey nice post k0ijn. Informative and mature. Much better then many of your other pre harvest flush arguments where you repeatedly state nutes are not stored in calyx's. But imo we smoke more then a calyx when smoking bud. A few things though and please, respectfully, do not delete this post. I really feel; Yeah, its all in the dry, but if you time it right and lower your ppm just the last 3 days or so. Not drowned, over feed, and not starve your plants, but a nice medium to assure your not messing up either way. Yeah, sure, if your a prefect grower and never overfeed then sure dont flush but most people need that extra security blanket in case they have over done it. So I just started smoking some pe that I ran the last 2 weeks at 600-800 ppm and it was very dense and burned very nice down to white ash. A nice clean burn like a flushed plant. A non flushed bc purps was very different as I suspect I had the ppm to high late in flower because it smokes different and not to a clean white ash but more so like charcoal. A lot has to do with the different strains. PE is a heavy eater. Purps not so much. The purps plant showed no signs of overfeeding. So I feel, any novice grower should try to rid the plant of stored nutes the last few days but a complete "flush" is not necessary. You really think a plant is gaining substantial growth the last couple days? I disagree. The last few days to a week my buds size doesnt change much, but the density does. A lower final ppm to assure access to nutes but not a build up seems logically to me.

http://www.cannabis.com/growing/flushing-a-critical-look-at-preharvest-flushing.html
Please, at least read the summary. You will like it.

http://www.cannabis.com/growing/flushing-misterito-s-nutrient-flushing-formula.html
Another good link about low ppm late in flower.

On your drying and not perfecting it yet; im not trying to be a dick, but for real man, you should try whole plant drying. Trim after all the way dry. You can knock my method with science all you want but its working for me EVERY TIME 100% consistency this whole year so far. No need to spend $ on any curing or drying devices. (snake oil for dry noobs) No more low odor and taste! I used to fight this dry crap all the time. Smelled great when damp but not so much when dry. Not anymore!! Try keeping the plant whole and let the cells do their thing. I dont know everything they're doing but its magic.  Im really only trying to help man. Everything set aside, maturely, like a adult, grower to grower only. Please try it and dont trim until the stem snaps. It helped me a great deal. It may help you. Hey, were all on the same side after all, right?


----------



## mr. green thumb 01 (Oct 25, 2012)

akula said:


> Anyways while we are on the subject, anyone know the best Kool-Aide favor to feed my bud for some fruity flavor? Ya science!


You're joking, right?


----------



## m420p (Oct 25, 2012)

*"Not one scientific piece of evidence has been provided by the pro pre-harvest flushing people.
You cannot find one study that proves any of pre-harvest flushings proclaimed positives.*"

Instead, do something called a experiment... See it with your own two eyes, as I have multiple times... 

I will NEVER not flush my plants again... and that's not because of what some scientist wrote in a article, it's because of what I KNOW from personal experiences.


----------



## mike91sr (Oct 25, 2012)

m420p said:


> *"Not one scientific piece of evidence has been provided by the pro pre-harvest flushing people.
> You cannot find one study that proves any of pre-harvest flushings proclaimed positives.*"
> 
> Instead, do something called a experiment... See it with your own two eyes, as I have multiple times...
> ...


There's no need to do our own experiments with results being based on our _perception _when there is credible evidence that definitively explains the process and findings better than any of us can. Have you ever done a tissue analysis to see what the ACTUAL results of flushing were? Because your taste buds are a lot less reliable than that, so "what some scientist wrote in an article" (read: published a journal based on a properly conducted experiment with controls and quantitative results) is much more credible than what you think you did or didn't taste. Let alone the amount of variables you DIDNT measure and precisely control when coming to your conclusions. If you don't know WHAT you're doing, WHY youre doing it, WHERE the changes take place, or HOW youll interpret the results, that's not an experiment.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 25, 2012)

mr. green thumb 01 said:


> On your drying and not perfecting it yet; im not trying to be a dick, but for real man, you should try whole plant drying. Trim after all the way dry. You can knock my method with science all you want but its working for me EVERY TIME 100% consistency this whole year so far. No need to spend $ on any curing or drying devices. (snake oil for dry noobs) No more low odor and taste! I used to fight this dry crap all the time. Smelled great when damp but not so much when dry. Not anymore!! Try keeping the plant whole and let the cells do their thing. I dont know everything they're doing but its magic.  Im really only trying to help man. Everything set aside, maturely, like a adult, grower to grower only. Please try it and dont trim until the stem snaps. It helped me a great deal. It may help you. Hey, were all on the same side after all, right?


All of what I just posted is quotes from something I wrote several months ago.
It's the same stuff I've been saying all along.

With regards to me not being having perfect dries was a statement of how nobody has perfect dries/grows/cures whatever you know it to mean.
There are variations in everything, nobody is perfect.

It wasn't a statement to my weed being badly dried or wrongly cured.
It's a recognition of the fact that it's impossible to achieve perfection in anything, we can tend towards it but never fully achieve it.
No grown Cannabis plant will ever be 100% perfect but some experts can get damn close.
I would love it if there was a way of keeping my plants at critical (100% productivity) nutrient levels throughout the grow but it's just not possible, the technology simply doesn't exist to measure or adjust the levels with such precision, and certainly not constantly. 

I have tried most ways to grow, dry & cure there is.
I've tried everything from water curing to whole plant drying and to aeroponics.

I have a good and scientifically proven way of doing what I do after years of trial and error and learning, it's why I achieve great results.






m420p said:


> *"Not one scientific piece of evidence has been provided by the pro pre-harvest flushing people.
> You cannot find one study that proves any of pre-harvest flushings proclaimed positives.*"
> 
> Instead, do something called a experiment... See it with your own two eyes, as I have multiple times...
> ...


Do you know what scientific evidence is?
It relies on stuff like empirical data and a rigid method.
It's proving a theory by experimentation while following certain principles of reasoning.

Scientific evidence is deduced by experimentation, except you have twisted the meaning of experiment to somehow exclude it from science when it's in fact a cornerstone of the scientific method. You think anybody can do an "experiment" without proper precautions or a proper setup and that "experiment" would somehow be proof of universal facts.
The premise is ridiculous.


What you're doing is not a scientific experiment, you do not own a lab or have any way of properly measuring and controlling an experiment.
Sure you can do something and call it an experiment but it is in no way related to anything credible, it's personal experience, nothing else.

You can't deduce facts from personal experiences.


----------



## akula (Oct 25, 2012)

mr. green thumb 01 said:


> You're joking, right?


Of course its a joke/sarcasm. It reflects my feeling of this debate after watching and debating it over the years.....that's its a joke. I mean when one side argues science and plant biology and botany and the other talks of feelings and popularity and faith and argues with nothing more then vague anecdotal evidence, then yeah it become nothing more then a joke to me. If the best argument you can muster is:

"dude if flushing wasn't mandatory then why does my nute company sell a high tech flushing solution for me to use??? HUH? Yeah thought so, checkmate brah!". 

So yeah I put the flushing argument right there on par with the "flavored weed with kool-aide" argument....ridiculous. Sorry I am being a dick, but its hard watching everyone stare at the rain falling and claim dry out. I guess it doesn't effect me much, well other then having to lie about how "of course I flush" to avoid an argument. It just feels like banging my your head against the wall to protect your brethren from continuing to run into it themselves. 

So yes....pre-harvest flush...flush away. In fact I am off to flush some tomatoes.


----------



## m420p (Oct 25, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> All of what I just posted is quotes from something I wrote several months ago.
> It's the same stuff I've been saying all along.
> 
> With regards to me not being having perfect dries was a statement of how nobody has perfect dries/grows/cures whatever you know it to mean.
> ...


Show me Scientific documentation published where the Scientific Method was used with two plants in same conditions with one flushed and one not flushed... lets see it... ALL your doing is taking scientific facts and studies of the biology of the Cannabis plant and saying that when you "flush" even when Nutrient Manufacturers tell you to in their schedule, your not necessarily flushing or leaching anything and just depriving the plant of nutrients. I somewhat agree with you there because I am the Scientific type but your missing my point.

I know there is differences(taste, smell, doesn't light well, ash color) between flushing and not flushing your plants, that's general knowledge in my circle of growers. It's to the point now where a few of us can easily tell whether other growers smoke was flushed or not. Honestly, have you ever tried the same strain flushed and not flushed? Probably not, you should try it some time... Even if your yield is effected a tiny bit(which I think is laughable) and you are starving your plants, better smoking bud is worth it to me.


----------



## whatisnow (Oct 25, 2012)

Hi K0ijn, thanks for your response earlier. I've only just got home and I will read it later today but I just wanted to say thanks just now. I know you may have commented elsewhere about it so taking the time to reiterate things you have probably said on many ocassions for the benefit of newbie is really appreciated. I will read and respond but I just didn't want you to think you made that effort for nothing.


----------



## mr. green thumb 01 (Oct 25, 2012)

akula said:


> If the best argument you can muster is:
> "dude if flushing wasn't mandatory then why does my nute company sell a high tech flushing solution for me to use??? HUH? Yeah thought so, checkmate brah!".


You quote me and then say this? I never said that. And my opinion on flushing is to lower ppm. Not plain water.


----------



## akula (Oct 25, 2012)

mr. green thumb 01 said:


> You quote me and then say this? I never said that. And my opinion on flushing is to lower ppm. Not plain water.


I never said anything like that nor did I comment on your opinions at all. You asked me if I was joking and I told you why I use sarcasm when there is a flushing "debate". I don't know your opinions on this matter or any other for that matter.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 25, 2012)

m420p said:


> Show me Scientific documentation published where the Scientific Method was used with two plants in same conditions with one flushed and one not flushed... lets see it... ALL your doing is taking scientific facts and studies of the biology of the Cannabis plant and saying that when you "flush" even when Nutrient Manufacturers tell you to in their schedule, your not necessarily flushing or leaching anything and just depriving the plant of nutrients. I somewhat agree with you there because I am the Scientific type but your missing my point.
> 
> I know there is differences(taste, smell, doesn't light well, ash color) between flushing and not flushing your plants, that's general knowledge in my circle of growers. It's to the point now where a few of us can easily tell whether other growers smoke was flushed or not. Honestly, have you ever tried the same strain flushed and not flushed? Probably not, you should try it some time... Even if your yield is effected a tiny bit(which I think is laughable) and you are starving your plants, better smoking bud is worth it to me.


It seems like you don't quite get it.
There hasn't been done any scientifically sound studies on pre-harvest flushing (we're not talking about general flushing, we're talking about pre-harvest flushing).
The reason it hasn't been done is because there is no interest in it.
Studies have shown that the arguments for pre-harvest flushing have no basis in truth or facts.
And scientists don't care about personal opinions or experiences, they don't matter at all when it comes to finding evidence or facts.


You can't possibly be a "scientific type", whatever that means, if you cannot understand that nutrient companies want to sell you as many products as possible and as much of those products as possible, they want to earn money, they want you to spend your money on stuff you "need".
A lot of companies make these blurred lines, trying to convince people they need all their shit.
There is no evidence that you do, yet you believe them blindly instead of believing in tested science.

How can you say that providing scientific evidence for pre-harvest flushing being a joke is no evidence for anything.
I mean you're not making any sense.
Yes all I'm doing is taking scientific facts and studies on cannabis and deducing facts from (like nutrient storage, nutrient transportation etc).
It's all someone needs to do to provide facts of how nutrients work and are transported around in Cannabis, it has a DIRECT link to pre-harvest flushing because it negates the need for it.

You are your 'friends' may taste a difference because you are not drying correctly, or not curing correctly or indeed not growing correctly.
There are so many variables which could account for why you are tasting differences, it could be anything from psychological effects (placebo or group dynamics) to the countless physical effects from not performing a correct grow.
People with a lot more experience than you have noticed no change in anything, other than pre-harvest flushed plants tend to not grow as big as plants which get fed throughout their life.
That you and your friends can't seem to grow/dry/cure properly is not reliable, credible or factual information.
It doesn't prove anything, it has NO relation to facts.

Again, you fail to read anything that I have written before, you just keep posting new questions without reading any prior information.
*I and most other serious growers have done personal experiments, testing same strains, pre-harvest flushed and unflushed.*
I have done this with several strains, several times with a lot of accuracy (I kept notes and was very specific and careful).
Most experienced growers who don't 'believe' in pre-harvest flushing have done these experiments, we have been saying so for years.
Yet when we say we see no difference all you guys argue is that we've been biased or haven't done the experiments properly.
Yet somehow I believe we have carried out the experiment a lot more carefully and scientifically than any pre-harvest flushing mongerer ever could, because we value logic, reason and empirical evidence.


Your argument is a fallacy in the end.
It's the same as asking me to prove god doesn't exist, if I can't, then he must exist.
The illogical and false nature of questions like that is so apparent to any reasonable person.
Just because the exact information about a particular plants reaction to leaching is not available does not automatically make every study which imposes on subjects retaining to those plants worthless.

The most important thing about it is that we don't have to have studies on pre-harvest flushing to assert certain facts about plants and how they work.
And the premise that we do is illogical and backwards thinking which helps no one.
Instead you should just read the scientific information and learn something.
This hate of facts and evidence is beyond me.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 25, 2012)

whatisnow said:


> Hi K0ijn, thanks for your response earlier. I've only just got home and I will read it later today but I just wanted to say thanks just now. I know you may have commented elsewhere about it so taking the time to reiterate things you have probably said on many ocassions for the benefit of newbie is really appreciated. I will read and respond but I just didn't want you to think you made that effort for nothing.


You're welcome. Tbh I don't mind repeating it when you ask as nicely as you do.
You are in stark contrast to those people who just sprout their ignorance without reading any of the provided information.
At least I'm not completely wasting my time typing all this up, some people do read the information.

It's clear to see who doesn't though, and those people should read some substantial information and apply it before they go off asking the exact same questions 100 people have asked before them using the exact same backwards thinking which has been disproven time and time again.

Anyway this wasn't meant to be a rant on the ignorance of those people who believe - "personal belief" / "personal experience" trumphs all -.

It's very kind of you to say what you did, you are the first person to do so, so I really appreciate it.


----------



## m420p (Oct 25, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> It seems like you don't quite get it.
> There hasn't been done any scientifically sound studies on pre-harvest flushing (we're not talking about general flushing, we're talking about pre-harvest flushing=.
> The reason it hasn't been done is because there is no interest in it.
> Studies have shown that the arguments for pre-harvest flushing have no basis in truth or facts.
> ...


"*You are your 'friends' my taste a difference because you are not drying correctly, or not curing correctly or indeed not growing correctly."

Look, you can go on and on all you want but don't disrespect me and my growing especially when you don't know me. I never disagreed or "hated" as you would say, with your scientific facts, I just disagree with your opinion that **"all the myths about pre-harvest flushing / leaching seem to be false." I've honestly never seen someone so hellbent on trying to prove something they believe when it is something so miniscule. I guess we'll agree to disagree.*

*And just so you know, I'm Atheist.*


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 25, 2012)

akula said:


> Of course its a joke/sarcasm. It reflects my feeling of this debate after watching and debating it over the years.....that's its a joke. I mean when one side argues science and plant biology and botany and the other talks of feelings and popularity and faith and argues with nothing more then vague anecdotal evidence, then yeah it become nothing more then a joke to me. If the best argument you can muster is:
> 
> "dude if flushing wasn't mandatory then why does my nute company sell a high tech flushing solution for me to use??? HUH? Yeah thought so, checkmate brah!".
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more.
It is a very silly and useless "debate".
In fact it's not even a debate because as you said one side argues science, the other argues personal beliefs.
It's very much akin to the religion debate which is equally a joke to any reasonable, logical person.

The only reason to have this debate is to stop people from proclaiming how factual and science-like their pre-harvest flushing is.
The only reason I continue to speak up for science and reason is that I want people to have a chance to see the evidence for themselves and to be enlightened if you will.
The problem is that most people take anything written down as fact, even if there is no evidence, reference or source provided.
It's a mentality of ignorance and it spreads like a disease.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 25, 2012)

m420p said:


> "*You are your 'friends' my taste a difference because you are not drying correctly, or not curing correctly or indeed not growing correctly."
> 
> Look, you can go on and on all you want but don't disrespect me and my growing especially when you don't know me. I never disagreed or "hated" as you would say, with your scientific facts, I just disagree with your opinion that **"all the myths about pre-harvest flushing / leaching seem to be false." I've honestly never seen someone so hellbent on trying to prove something they believe when it is something so miniscule. *
> 
> *And just so you know, I'm Atheist *.



Why didn't you quote the last part of that statement?



> *There are so many variables which could account for why you are tasting differences, it could be anything from psychological effects (placebo or group dynamics) to the countless physical effects from not performing a correct grow.*


It's very arrogant of you to think that you're doing 100% perfectly and that you could in no way be wrong.
That is usually what differentiates science from belief.
People are willing and able to be wrong (and will own up to it) if they are presented with evidence of such.

I'm not disrespecting you or your friends. I'm saying that what you believe is against what empirical evidence shows up and what sciences tells us.
There are so many variables which could account for you tasting a difference it's very arrogant of you thinking: "without a doubt it must be the nutrients in the calyxes, there is no other way."
Especialy when science shows us this is not how nutrients are stored or transported around plants.

Again you got it wrong. It's not an opinion of mine, it's a statement of facts on the basis of scientific studies carried out by professionals (scientists).
It's not my personal experience or belief. 
You have thoroughly misunderstood what my viewpoint is if you think I'm simply believing in it.
I'm stating facts not beliefs or opinions.



Oh and thanks for not answering any of the numerous points I made in the past post.
The only thing you seemed to grasp onto there was the fact that I said you and you friends could be wrong due to many variables.


----------



## m420p (Oct 26, 2012)

*"It's very arrogant of you to think that you're doing 100% perfectly and that you could in no way be wrong.*"

Please, quote me when I said this.

*"without a doubt it must be the nutrients in the calyxes, there is no other way."
*
nvmd, don't quote me, because you'll make up a quote*.

**"Especialy when science shows us this is not how nutrients are stored or transported around plants."

*Again, when did I say I believed flushing had anything to do with flushing or leaching nutrients... please try and quote me without making something up.

*"Again you got it wrong. It's not an opinion of mine, it's a statement of facts on the basis of scientific studies carried out by professionals (scientists).*"

_* "To conclude, I don't believe in the surplus nutrients / substances theory regarding normally PPM'ed weed (as close to 'critical' as possible without overfeeding nor underfeeding) contra flushed / leached weed.*"

_"Believe" sounds like a opinion to me, and that is what I disagree with, not the facts about the biology of a plants nutrient uptake you presented.


----------



## Rumple (Oct 26, 2012)

I did a few scientific studies in my grow room. The blind tests showed flushing to help the product grown in DWC. Did nothing for my organic soil grows. Not trying to make anyone mad by my findings, just sharing my opinions and experiences. Would love to see some of them studies done with Marijuana (I know it's just a plant, all plants are the same and the world is flat).

It's not like I was bashing anyone for bad spelling (that would be completely retarded). Love to share grow methods and opinions with other growers, thats all.
Peace, R.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

m420p said:


> Please, quote me when I said this.


Now you are playing the semantic game.
You never said this directly but you indirectly referred to it by saying:



> I know there is differences(taste, smell, doesn't light well, ash color) between flushing and not flushing your plants, that's general knowledge in my circle of growers.


By stating that you are saying that you know without a doubt that what you do is correct and that there is a difference between flushed and non-flushed plants.
Which has no basis in any fact neither logic nor reason.




> *"without a doubt it must be the nutrients in the calyxes, there is no other way."
> *
> nvmd, don't quote me, because you'll make up a quote*.*


That statement was never a quote of you. It was a way of showing people the ignorance of your statement.
You said you know that there is a difference, well that is simply wrong.
You think you know, you think it's a fact, you believe it, you don't know it truthfully.
No scientific evidence has been provided by anyone claiming pre-harvest flushing helps, people who have done experiments have noticed no differences.
And even if some people spot differences and others don't that doesn't mean it's automatically fact.
And when research actually shows the whole premise to be wrong (nutrients aren't even stored in the calyxes) then the entire argument falls to pieces.




> *"Especialy when science shows us this is not how nutrients are stored or transported around plants."
> 
> *Again, when did I say I believed flushing had anything to do with flushing or leaching nutrients... please try and quote me without making something up.


What do you believe then? How exactly is pre-harvest flushing helping your buds taste better, burn better, have better ash if it isn't for the same old reasons every pre-harvest flusher uses. How is your method different, and if it is, why did you not state how you're doing it and why it doesn't have anything to do with pre-harvest flushing (which is generally thought to remove stored nutrients from the calyxes)? That is the argument every pre-harvest flusher uses.




> *"Again you got it wrong. It's not an opinion of mine, it's a statement of facts on the basis of scientific studies carried out by professionals (scientists).*"
> 
> _* "To conclude, I don't believe in the surplus nutrients / substances theory regarding normally PPM'ed weed (as close to 'critical' as possible without overfeeding nor underfeeding) contra flushed / leached weed.*"
> 
> _"Believe" sounds like a opinion to me, and that is what I disagree with, not the facts about the biology of a plants nutrient uptake you presented.


Again you take it out of context to prove an invalid point.
The last sentence I wrote was written as a response to Gastanker over 6 months ago.
It was a way of saying I don't believe in your bullshit stories which have no supporting evidence.

When I said I don't believe in the surplus theory I was talking about the arguments pre-harvest flushers use which are NOT based in science.
I don't believe in their personal beliefs. That is what I meant and said. I did not say I don't believe in their facts or their scientific evidence.
I said I do not believe in their personal experiences, their fairy tales or their opinions.

You have thoroughly misread everything I have written if you think I just pick and choose what to believe in.

I can have a belief or opinion regarding other peoples opinions and beliefs. When it comes to science I don't believe or have opinions, I follow what has been empirically proven and is viewed by the scientific community as fact.

You can't get out of this with semantics, don't put words in my mouth trying to misinterpret what I wrote.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

Rumple said:


> I did a few scientific studies in my grow room. The blind tests showed flushing to help the product grown in DWC. Did nothing for my organic soil grows. Not trying to make anyone mad by my findings, just sharing my opinions and experiences. Would love to see some of them studies done with Marijuana (I know it's just a plant, all plants are the same and the world is flat).
> 
> It's not like I was bashing anyone for bad spelling (that would be completely retarded). Love to share grow methods and opinions with other growers, thats all.
> Peace, R.


It's not a scientific study when you do it in your own grow room without using a proper scientific method or following the principles of reasoning and logic.
You don't have the technology or education to carry out a scientific study. You are misleading people when you call it a scientific study.
It's a personal experience, nothing else.

Scientific studies need proper measurements and strict adherence to rules and regulations, plus they need to be peer-reviewed to assert whether they are valuable or not.

I'm not saying that your experiments are worthless, they might be worth it to you and help you in some way but to the public in general and for the search of evidence and facts your personal experiences and beliefs do nothing.
You can't use them as arguments to prove anything.

Still not bashing you for doing it, you can do what you want, just don't claim it's lead you to facts or evidence or proven anything.


----------



## m420p (Oct 26, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> Now you are playing the semantic game.
> You never said this directly but you indirectly referred to it by saying:
> 
> 
> ...


You have too much time on your hands... I concede. I'll smoke one for ya, peace.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

m420p said:


> You have too much time on your hands... I concede. I'll smoke one for ya, peace.


Or perhaps I just type and think very fast?
It doesn't take me very long to type or to look up information.


Come on, I try to keep the discussion relevant and you just concede?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you can believe what you want to.

All I'm doing is presenting the facts and evidence and using logic and reason to form my arguments.

I feel like you haven't even read my posts, it's your prerogative of course but if it's indeed the case then I have wasted a lot of time explaining.

Why can't you at least explain how your view on pre-harvest flushing is different?
How the flushing helps improve taste, ash etc. which you claimed it to.
Because when I laid out the general viewpoint of pre-harvest flushers you said you never said that (implying you believe it helps in other ways).
Why can't you explain what way it helps if it's not by drawing out stored nutrients?


----------



## Rumple (Oct 26, 2012)

Koijn,
Hell yeah, I appreciate your comments (very well put). But you have no idea the amount of education I have (don't base it on my spelling please) and the process I use to form my theory/hypothesis on this matter. And you can do real science at home. Follow the basic scientific method:


Ask and define the question.
Gather information and resources through observation.
Form a hypothesis.
Perform one or more experiments and collect and sort data.
Analyze the data.
Interpret the data and make conclusions that point to a hypothesis.
Formulate a "final" or "finished" hypothesis.

A stable control is the most difficult part of doing any science in a marijuana grow room. I can go into detail about the controls and cycle times of my grow room (most folks have stopped reading this much text at this point in my post anyway). But in short, we harvest the same clone every 70 to 80 days for years. Sure we try a new strain from time to time, but we have maintain our mother/clone for over eight years.

We have found that organic soil did make a differance in taste. Flushing did not help the process in that case.
I am ok if folks reject my findings, but talking about what we do can help (even if we are wrong).
So keep talking, I will listen (perhaps not hear).


----------



## Rumple (Oct 26, 2012)

I think Koijn has found some good bud. It is a good high for you my brotha.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Koijn,
> Hell yeah, I appreciate your comments (very well put). But you have no idea the amount of education I have (don't base it on my spelling please) and the process I use to form my theory/hypothesis on this matter. And you can do real science at home. Follow the basic scientific method:
> 
> 
> ...



That's correct, I don't know what education you have, I just assumed that you don't have a masters degree in bioengineering/molecular chemistry/biology etc.
Maybe you do, maybe I'm wrong.

But it still doesn't make your personal experiments 'real science'.
Maybe you do have a lab in your home but I highly doubt it.

The amount of gear and know how you would need to perform chromatography experiments and test the substances in your experiment are extremely expensive and hard to use.
Without this kind of data your experiment doesn't really prove anything.
You need to show your workings and scientifically prove your assumptions by following the scientific method.

I understand that you probably spend a lot of time doing experiments and that you value your findings but without peer-review and complete data it's not 'real science'.
There's a reason why it takes scientists months (or years) to perform experiments and gather enough data and showing it to enough people to have look for errors before it's presented as 'real science'.




Rumple said:


> I think Koijn has found some good bud. It is a good high for you my brotha.


I don't see how I'm any different. I'm still a hammering realist with zero tolerance for ignorance 
But I appreciate the sentiment anyway.


----------



## m420p (Oct 26, 2012)

*"Or perhaps I just type and think very fast?
It doesn't take me very long to type or to look up information."*

That's pretty obvious, I'd like to try what your smoking cause when I'm high I'm the complete opposite.

"*I feel like you haven't even read my posts, it's your prerogative of course but if it's indeed the case then I have wasted a lot of time explaining.*

I've read them, I'm just really high, tired as fuck, and have a hard time putting my thoughts into words as it is. Since you have put the time into this I'll answer your last few questions.

*"Why can't you at least explain how your view on pre-harvest flushing is different?" 

"*These guys have strict criteria for judging buds; two of their easiest for you to use are the ignition test and the white ash test&#8230;
Next time you&#8217;re burning a bowl of Kush or whatever your favorite bud of the day is, pay attention to how hard it is to ignite the bud and keep it lit.
Also look at whether the bud burns to a fluffy white ash, or something darker and denser. If your bud is properly dried/cured but hard to light, it&#8217;s full of fertilizer salts, natural compounds and/or chemical compounds.
In fact, your marijuana can absorb and store heavy metals, radioactive materials, fertilizer salts and other materials that aren't good for you to smoke.
Ask yourself, have I been using standard P-K hydroponics bloom booster supplements? We&#8217;re talking about boosters with more phosphorus (P) than potassium (K). Most bloom boosters are like that.
Problem is, high-P ratios are detrimental for bud growth and wrong for your medical marijuana enjoyment. The phosphorus, which can be radioactive, stores in your buds. Take a hit, hold it in, cough your lungs out. Gross!
When pollutants store in bud tissues, they make your buds hard to light. They make them harsh. They make them burn poorly. In your bowl is a dark ugly mass instead of white fluffy ash.
If you&#8217;re smoking joints, the ones rolled with polluted, poorly-flushed buds are the joints that keep going out.
Polluted buds affect your health and high. Your lungs and throat get raked. Not only that, because you can&#8217;t get the bud lit properly, you lose adequate combustion and full de-carboxlyation of THC and cannabinoids.
What the heck is de-carboxylation? It&#8217;s a chemical process that happens when you heat THC and other cannabinoids. A chemical process that&#8217;s absolutely necessary so those cannabinoids will be active in your brain and body.
So you lose toking pleasure and cannabinoids due to gummed-up buds that don&#8217;t light or burn to white ash."

Before I answer that question, what's your thoughts on this quote from my saved notes?

Honestly, my opinion is based off passed down knowledge from my growing circle, my own "experiment" and personal experiences, and the research I have done. Could everyone that has ever told me that flushing is necessary be wrong and it does nothing but hurt the plant, yes. Could a mistake in drying and curing or growing played a part in my experiment of taste, smell, how well it stays lit, and ash color, yes. Could the majority of research I read on flushing be a bunch of BS just to sell a product, yes. But it's going to take a lot more than anything you argued to convince me that Flushing does not effect taste, smell, how well it stays lit, and ash color.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

m420p said:


> *"Or perhaps I just type and think very fast?
> It doesn't take me very long to type or to look up information."*
> 
> That's pretty obvious, I'd like to try what your smoking cause when I'm high I'm the complete opposite.
> ...



Ok well that's fine, nothing wrong with that.

Where is that quote from? I read it but it doesn't make much sense to me.

First, because my weed is very easy to light, it stays lit and it burns to a clear white ash.
And I'm not flushing anything, I'm feeding critical nutrient levels, around 1300 PPM sometimes depending on the size of the plant and what how it reacts.

Secondly because phosphorous is not stored in the calyxes/buds.
Neither are other heavy metals or radioactive substances. I've never read any study regarding nutrient storage and transportation which showed this.
In fact most fruiting bodies contain very little nutrients due to the fact that those mobile nutrients (nutrients like NPK) are used up very quickly (almost immediately) when they are diverted to the fruiting bodies.
Fruits are not storage pods for nutrients, the stem(s) and roots in particular (but also leaves to some extent) are the storage facilities of plants.
I think this might lead back to a misunderstanding of mobile and immobile nutrients.

It would take a while to explain, it's easier just to google it.
I have posted some information about this in the same thread I got my quotes from but it's easier to google it. 


I accept that you need more evidence to convince you fully, that is entirely your call.
All I can do is to appeal to those facts I have described and the lack of evidence for pre-harvest flushing.

To expert horticulturalists (I'm not saying I'm an expert per se) it's a funny debate because you don't see this debate happening with regards to any other plant.
Nobody flushes tomatoes or cucumbers or apples or oranges.
It's a 'theory' entirely strung onto cannabis and it's quite misplaced but engraved in people by years of repetition.

It's sort of similar to the theory of a connection between cannabis usage and schizophrenia.
Entirely unfounded, proven wrong by multiple studies, yet many people still think it's as factual as gravity.
All of this misunderstanding simply by repetition and lack a of interest in facts and evidence.


----------



## Uncle Pirate (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't flush, my ash is never black unless I burn a joint that's too moist, I don't taste chemicals, and no one else tastes chemicals. In fact, there is not a single difference in taste, burnability, appearance, smell, etc. I didn't do a side by side grow, but I did smoke the bud from the previous harvest that was flushed and bud from the later non flushed harvest. No difference to me. Maybe some people that are feeding until harvest are overfeeding and mistaking a harsh chlorophyll taste for a chem taste. I know joints will have a funny taste if the weed is too moist and you have to hit it with the lighter too many times, taking in butane and black soot from the flame. No one ever mentions that.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

Rumple said:


> People do real science at home all the time. You don't need a high tech lab to do real science experiments. Just hold to the basic scientific method. To think only labs are credible is very laughable. Labs told us cigarette smoking was good for you and harmless. Countless scientific discoveries are authored by home scientists and curious hobbyists. Conducting your own experiments can lead to all kinds of enlightenment, you should try it. I do them all the time, it has helped me quite a bit.
> Keep an open mind.


Yeah I know and I do too. All the time.
But I can't do real scientific exmperiments on cannabinoids and measure - how many nutrients are where at a specific point in time - or phosphorous ions at home.
If you want to make real experiments regarding how pre-harvest flushing affects a grow you surely need to get that data.
You need to be able to prove how and why the nutrients linger, how they might be removed and all the effects on the surrounding tissue (odour/taste/ash wise).

Thats what I mean by it's impossible for most of us to do molecular chemistry or molecular biology in our homes.

I never said labs are the only credible sources.
There are tons of things you can do, with real science, in your home, without spending a lot of money.

But when it comes to understanding the very small and measuring ions, molecules, odours, cannabinoids etc. it takes a lot of equipment and a lot of knowledge.
I've studied biology and chemistry but I could never do any real scientific experiment on nutrient transportation or nutrient storage for example.
You'd need to do many experiments with one huge experiment, you'd need to deal with a test group of non flushed plants and a test group of flushed plants, in the hundreds perhaps to get decent credible results. Ontop of that you'd have to measure everything precisely in not just temperature but CO2 levels, humidity levels, light cycles etc. ANd just to get going you'd have to have the knowledge of how to set up and operate the equipment needed.
Everything would have to be under the same conditions, it would be a nightmare for any one person to do this.
I'd take a huge team of people, just like in real life situations when scientists do real experiments.

You have to distinguish between measuring the water that flows out of your full bath when you lay in it and calculating your weight - and measuring nutrient ion levels in several plants over several months with a crazy accuracy principle.
You can't just say that because some random lab said cigarette smoking was good 50 years ago that by default we need to think outside labs.
Every government lies and makes false reports, just look at the marijuana prohibition and how the US was key in turning down reports which showed no negative effects by smoking while promoting reports which showed links to schizophrenia and cancer/death.
And the same goes for corporations, they lie to sell stuff.

I conduct experiments all the time but I don't presume to be able to conduct extremely complex experiments on the molecular scale, at home.


----------



## SimonD (Oct 26, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> There are tons of things you can do, with real science, in your home, without spending a lot of money.


Agree 100%. I'll go as far as to say that one almost *has* to conduct his own experiments and outline/streamline the relevant functions of his operation. I mean, anyone with a half-way comprehensive education can bluntly see that much of what's asserted in this field is outright crap. Wishful thinking. Stupid people relying on dubious correlations. Define it any way you like. It doesn't change.

FWIW, I grow in soil and do not flush, no dark period, never measured pH.

Simon


----------



## bluntmassa1 (Oct 26, 2012)

SimonD said:


> Agree 100%. I'll go as far as to say that one almost *has* to conduct his own experiments and outline/streamline the relevant functions of his operation. I mean, anyone with a half-way comprehensive education can bluntly see that much of what's asserted in this field is outright crap. Wishful thinking. Stupid people relying on dubious correlations. Define it any way you like. It doesn't change.
> 
> FWIW, I grow in soil and do not flush, no dark period, never measured pH.
> 
> Simon


no shit I know you do pretty damn good but you never measure your ph? do you use lime or anything? and just straight tap water without adjusting ph or nothing? also do you use chemical nutes or organic? and you just use pro-mix right?


----------



## connoisseurde420 (Oct 26, 2012)

k0jin links please? I searched ur name and after the 5 posts of 'nutrients arent stored in the calyx' I stopped looking and wasnt going to go thru the next 100 or so to see if they are the same. It would be helpful to people if they didnt have to go thru 100 threads of 'do a search' . How do you have the patience to keep typing the same thing instead of just linking to your information and be done with it lol. If you could it would be much appriciated.


----------



## SimonD (Oct 26, 2012)

bluntmassa1 said:


> no shit I know you do pretty damn good but you never measure your ph? do you use lime or anything? and just straight tap water without adjusting ph or nothing? also do you use chemical nutes or organic? and you just use pro-mix right?


B'cuzz Pro-Mix right into the pots; I add Perlite to BX. Jack's Classic All-Purpose in veg and JC Blossom Booster in bloom. Water straight out of the tap. That's it.

Simon


----------



## althor (Oct 26, 2012)

SimonD said:


> B'cuzz Pro-Mix right into the pots; I add Perlite to BX. Jack's Classic All-Purpose in veg and JC Blossom Booster in bloom. Water straight out of the tap. That's it.
> 
> Simon



Man, I had phd checked my water quite a few times a few years ago. Starting around 6 months ago, I started having issues with my plants. I kept coming up with "reasons" and the issues just kept continuing. Finally I threw my hands up, went and got a pool ph testing kit, rechecked my water....
Somehow my tap water had changed. I am guessing with as dry as things were this summer they may have switched to a different well. Either way my tap water went from a neutral ph of 7 for the past several years to almost 9.5. I had long ago adjusted my soil with additives to work with my 7 ph water so I didnt need to constantly check it. Because I thought everything was all good in that department I went through 1 full batch and most of the 2nd batch trying to remedy issues that basically was do to crazy tap water ph. 
After that, I will regularly check my tap water ph just to make sure there are no suprises.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

connoisseurde420 said:


> k0jin links please? I searched ur name and after the 5 posts of 'nutrients arent stored in the calyx' I stopped looking and wasnt going to go thru the next 100 or so to see if they are the same. It would be helpful to people if they didnt have to go thru 100 threads of 'do a search' . How do you have the patience to keep typing the same thing instead of just linking to your information and be done with it lol. If you could it would be much appriciated.


Are you kidding me? Did you not say you had read this thread?
I have linked to my sources not just in this thread but in countless other threads.
You said you have read this thread, yet somehow you haven't read what I've posted in this thread, since you haven't noticed I've made a comprehensive post with links and sources.

I have linked the information many times before, in so many different thread where people like you who can't be bothered to do simple research, ask the same questions, whining over the same lack of evidence when in fact it's right in front of them.

I'm not going to repeat myself again, I already have re-posted the links 5 times in the past week alone.
I can't copy paste the same information every time some lazy guy can't even be bothered to read what's directly in front of him.
You said you had read this thread which is obviously a lie since you are still asking for links and sources when I've copy pasted the same info I've been posting for the past 5 months in this very thread.

I can't take you seriously if you can't even be bothered to tell the truth.
The level of arrogance and ignorance you show by ignoring information posted right in the same thread in which you whine over no evidence being posted is beyond me.
I don't get how you could be this ignorant.
Perhaps you are just trolling because a person surely can't be this ignorant?
You can't possibly be taken seriously if you say there's no evidence when in fact there's evidence in the very thread you posted in?
Right I forgot facts don't matter to you guys, reason and logic doesn't matter.

Who cares if I posted the sources and references in this very thread, we can all just pretend I never did, just like you're doing now right?
Who cares if all the information is right here in this thread (and several other threads), let's just pretend I never posted any evidence, it's much easier to win an argument by being ignorant than thinking for yourself right?
Sitting there giving each other likes and virtual high fives over your perceived cleverness.



To sum up: The information, links, sources and references are all posted IN THIS THREAD.
It was posted BEFORE you asked your question. BEFORE you claimed you had read the thread (which you clearly haven't).





mr. green thumb 01 said:


> Arjan of Greenhouse seeds flushes. He wins cannabis cups. Just saying...
> 
> Also, I cant force myself to read any more of k0ijns post there just to long. Do you really think the guy talks like that? Lol sounds a little geeky, ya know. Just saying...
> 
> ...


What a great argument..
You can't be bothered to read so you just resort to calling me a geek.
It makes me question whether you have ever read a substantial book if you can't even get through a few paragraphs on a forum post.

I never spent one penny on my education. But kudos on your assumption.
It's the wonderful thing about living in a free country, we get paid to go to University and school is free.


I never said that, don't twist my words.
It's like the time when I said "In my professional opinion" and you thought I meant I was a professional grower. You have a serious problem with understanding the meaning of words and phrases.
What I'm saying is that you cannot talk about doing nutrient experiments as 'real science' if you cannot even measure the nutrient levels or have any idea what's going on inside the plant.
You guys are comparing simple experiments to complex experiments, as if they are the same.
Your premise is ignorant beyond belief.


The reason some of your posts are being deleted is because they are off topic and/or offensive.
You have this nack of acting like a petulant child while whining if anyone does anything to you.


----------



## SimonD (Oct 26, 2012)

mr. green thumb 01 said:


> Also SimonD never checks ph and uses tap but hes a pro!? LMFAO!!


Please stop trying to troll me. When you can pull what I do, feel free to laugh all you want.

Simon


----------



## obijohn (Oct 26, 2012)

Tried flushing and not flushing....no difference.tried extended darkness before harvest versus no darkness....no difference


----------



## SimonD (Oct 26, 2012)

althor said:


> Man, I had phd checked my water quite a few times a few years ago. Starting around 6 months ago, I started having issues with my plants. I kept coming up with "reasons" and the issues just kept continuing. Finally I threw my hands up, went and got a pool ph testing kit, rechecked my water....
> Somehow my tap water had changed. I am guessing with as dry as things were this summer they may have switched to a different well. Either way my tap water went from a neutral ph of 7 for the past several years to almost 9.5. I had long ago adjusted my soil with additives to work with my 7 ph water so I didnt need to constantly check it. Because I thought everything was all good in that department I went through 1 full batch and most of the 2nd batch trying to remedy issues that basically was do to crazy tap water ph.
> *After that, I will regularly check my tap water ph just to make sure there are no suprises.*


Fair enough. We all have to do what we must. In my case, there's no reason to adjust or alter anything. The plants don't need further input; the garden runs like a machine. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. lol

Simon


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

Rumple said:


> I never said I was checking molecular chemistry or uranium enrichment in my grow room. And you don't need to do that stuff to measure results and debunk grow myths. The science I am doing has nothing to do with why, I only focus on results/outcome. Then a simple blind human study (in this case) is all I need to see what works in my grow room. Not NASA but effective. You can go on and on about why I get my results, but it won't change them and I don't really care. Perhaps it has to do with one of the many variable's (nutrients, strain, cycle time, or that old lady next door), but I am only interested in making a good product. I will let others come up with the "why" answers and cold fusion.
> 
> BTW: I have access to a fully equipped lab (almost never use it), we even have an electron microscope (used for checking metal grain structure). Perhaps I can get a few trichome photos with it.


I know you didn't and I wasn't trying to twist the meaning of your words.
I'm simply stating that to know about nutrients and how they affect the plant, you need to measure nutrient levels, storage etc.
You need a lot of detailed information before you can make assumptions about how nutrients behave and how plants react to them.

I know you just focus on the outcome, which is fine but it's not conclusive.
The case you experience could be a 1/100 fluke, or it could be other variables affecting the outcome.
There are so many other possibilities.

I agree that scientists should come up with the answers but we need to follow what science tells us when it does come up with answers.
Or at least we need to accept that it's scientific facts.

You don't have to use the information or change your grow but you cannot deny the information.

Do you have access to a chromatography system? It'd be exciting to see what your plants consist of compared to other grows.


----------



## akula (Oct 26, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> What a great argument..
> You can't be bothered to read so you just resort to calling me a geek.....



Honestly I dont know why you bother to tell you the truth. OK I do actually know why you bother because you want someone who is new to cannabis growing to get some actual pertinent data rather then a bunch of passed down fairy tales that become the popular "solution". I understand that. 

But believe me, anyone that wants to find real scientific data will search it out. I was one of those that just believed whatever was the popular grow paradigm. I soon realized that many of those were simply just myths and fairy tales parroted from generations of growers that had the same stupid shit fed to them when they started. It is an endless cycle but it is what it is. 

It is easy to decipher when you think about it. Those that fail to even want to let go of their beliefs come with no real arguments, refuse to even consider exploring scientific data that may threaten their beliefs, continue to misrepresent any counter to their belief and become fiercely defense when their belief is threatened. 

I mean look at who you are having a discussion with here. They fully admit they are not interested in reading your position because it is too long. So do you really think they would be willing to read a longer, and even more boring, paper on plant botany? They also are not only attacking you, they are attacking anyone else that disagrees with them or states a different position. You cannot have a proper discussion with someone when they can only resort to countering you with every logical fallacy in the book.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 26, 2012)

akula said:


> Honestly I dont know why you bother to tell you the truth. OK I do actually know why you bother because you want someone who is new to cannabis growing to get some actual pertinent data rather then a bunch of passed down fairy tales that become the popular "solution". I understand that.
> 
> But believe me, anyone that wants to find real scientific data will search it out. I was one of those that just believed whatever was the popular grow paradigm. I soon realized that many of those were simply just myths and fairy tales parroted from generations of growers that had the same stupid shit fed to them when they started. It is an endless cycle but it is what it is.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your view on this and I agree with your reasoning.
But I won't stop making it easier for people to find factual and pertinent information just because a few steadfast believers don't agree with science.
They can hate on me all they want, it won't stop the march of progress.

These kinds of pre-harvest flushing 'discussions' have been going on for years and it never seems to end.
And I agree, it's not a real discussion when one side uses every fallacy in the book.
In many ways it's similar to an argument with a religious fundamentalist.

But I have had people PM me who said they actually learned something from reading the stuff I've written and the books and studies I link and refer to.
Even some who say they have started to take up the discussion with other people because they have real references to quote and real science to back up their statements.
And that makes it all worth it tbh.

We need to get the facts out in the air, no matter how tough it might be.
Same way with religion, we can't let people stifle truth or ignore facts.
Facts matter and so does science, we owe almost everything we take for granted these days to science.

Spreading these studies, publications and relevant books is a good way of showing people the real data.
And in the end it's hopefully worth it.


----------



## budbro18 (Oct 27, 2012)

I dont know if anyones said this yet but i read a while ago on here about this very matter.

One man (former small time crop farmer) said that no one in the farming industry uses any type of flushing agent before harvest, nor do they cut nutrients before they harvest to decrease "nute taste" and would only cut nutrients before harvest to save a few bucks.

I have adopted this mentality and figured if the people who grow our corn, apples, oranges, grapes, and other fruits and vegetables dont do this then what makes marijuana so different? i understand were smoking it but if the "flush theory" was true than we would taste "nutes" in our veggies and fruits, thus making it undesirable, thus causing farmers to "flush" the last few days/weeks.

Although... people who grow corn and other products are concerned about weight and size and total amount of fruit, like any marijuana grower, so those chemicals could be dangerous to us and they put that aside for the increase in profit. in which case if every fruit, veggie, or grain grown without this "flush" would be just as dangerous if not more dangerous than smoking some marijuana that wasnt flushed.

Also think about it like this. Imagine a raw potato, take a big bite out of it. taste anything? maybe some dirt and an offputting taste, lets assume for the time being that these are "chemicals" which they are just not dangerous or taste reducing. 

Take that same potato and boil it or steam it until cooked. dont add salt. just boil, rinse, then take a big bite out of it.

It may not taste how you prefer but there is a distinct difference. The "cooking" process is basically an accelerated "curing" by which the starches are converted to other flavorful compounds which make the potato desirable.

So in the end if we could accelerate the rate at which chlorophyll was broken down then we would never have this debate and everyone would just do that to get the best tasting bud... since we cant we can only leave it up to proper growing methods, coupled with steady drying and curing.

Now as for the extended dark exposure, i do it based on small evidence ive found with a strain ive flowerd about a dozen times. It had some effect but then again my tolerence and growing experience has increased over those times so if it does do anything its evened out for me hahaha

but thats just my 2 cents... or 32 cents but either way its my opinion and id love to hear any comments about it. Restart this discussion.

Because its not about whos right or wrong but whats best.


----------



## Uncle Pirate (Oct 28, 2012)

^^
Arjan? Really? The biggest shyster in the business? Lmao. 

Don't know if its been posted in this thread, but here's some facts about flushing. 
https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/409622-truth-about-flushing.html

And some facts about Arjan. If he's so awesome, why rig the cup?
http://www.coffeehouseculture.com/E-zine/Issue One/E-zine Pages/Issue One Pages/Page 03/P03PT02.html


----------



## akula (Oct 28, 2012)

Uncle Pirate - yes that's a great cannabis specific paper showing how plant biology and botany discredit the entire practical-practice of pre-harvest flushing. It has also been cycled through cannabis grow forums for years hundreds if not thousands of times. If you are someone that was serious about finding out about the benefits of flushing, you most likely came across it. What does that say about those that still continue to argue that pre-harvest flush is a mandatory practice? That they are not actually researching anything and basing their grow on faith, or they are unable or unwilling to read and comprehend it. 

The same goes for your other point Arjan and GHS. Arjan is a marketer and lost his breeder talent, shantibaba, many years ago. Arjan and GHS have been riding on their old rep and the money and time they spend in marketing to stay in the game for many years. The CC is simply a marketing event anyways and the best seed marketing companies win every year and not necessarily always the best strains. So saying you are copying Arjan growing is like saying you are trying to make your high school wrestling team by copying Hulk Hogans moves.


----------



## Rumple (Oct 28, 2012)

Ok, now Arjan does not know how to grow marijuana? And a bunch of you know more about growing weed than him? You all should be able to win the cub next year. Can't wait.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 28, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Ok, now Arjan does not know how to grow marijuana? And a bunch of you know more about growing weed than him? You all should be able to win the cub next year. Can't wait.


I know of the scandal about him fixing the Cannabis Cup but I think he still knows how to grow.
I'm not sure if he's to be trusted with anything he says though since he has lied and cheated in the past.

He certainly doesn't have integrity.


----------



## budbro18 (Oct 28, 2012)

Have you guys watched any of green houses grow videos?

I watch em when i get bored and want a little info.

Theyre pretty good but you can tell arjan is trying to sell the shit out of em.

IMO ghs doesnt need that. ive ran a few of there strains (mostly from freebies) and im always surprised at how close they are to what they are describing.

There chemdawg isnt the real chemdawg but it has all the characteristics that they claim it does. 

Maybe i just get lucky because i hear alot of freebies dont pop and ive never had a problem with any of em.

Also ill be running ghs KINGS KUSH shortly. and ill be able to dedicate my full time and effort into bring the best out of that.

stop by to see the results in a few weeks/months.


----------



## Huel Perkins (Oct 28, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Ok, now Arjan does not know how to grow marijuana? And a bunch of you know more about growing weed than him? You all should be able to win the cub next year. Can't wait.


I've met some great growers, i've known some great growers, i've read books from great growers, but there isn't a single one of them that i agree with on every single aspect of growing. 

I'm not going to say Arjan is an idiot but just because he says somethings doesn't mean shit to me. I've been doing this long enough, i don't need to follow anyone's lead.. Once you can say that, you won't need to bring other people on your side into your argument...


----------



## bluntmassa1 (Oct 28, 2012)

budbro18 said:


> Have you guys watched any of green houses grow videos?
> 
> I watch em when i get bored and want a little info.
> 
> ...


their is no way in hell all his plants are as described atleast on their thc and cbd percents and yields. I've watched them grow videos they have on their site they grow from clone and while they claim 20% thc they test their clones and for the most part their just barely breaking 10% thc and they are not growing from seed but clone that right their is enough for me to not buy from them plus they only sell fems and the yields they get in those grow videos are far from what they advertise. they may have some stable seeds but their full of shit for the most part.


----------



## Rumple (Oct 28, 2012)

A lot depends on who is growing it. Perhaps they know something about growing weed you don't. It is possible.



> [I've been doing this long enough, i don't need to follow anyone's lead..
> Once you can say that, you won't need to bring other people on your side into your argument...


I guess I will always be learning from others and asking folks I respect for advice and opinions. 
I'm not at your super high level it seems, so I may never be saying the stuff you do (sucks to be me)... but you keep doing what you're doing.
I don't see this as an argument (like you do) I see it as a few growers having some dialog about methods and posting opinions.



> K0ijn pretty much covered everything I wanted to say...


Who brought that name into the argu.. I mean discussion?

*Bazinga!*


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 29, 2012)

Rumple said:


> A lot depends on who is growing it. Perhaps they know something about growing weed you don't. It is possible.
> 
> 
> I guess I will always be learning from others and asking folks I respect for advice and opinions.
> ...


I get your point but I think Huel meant using other peoples opinions as assists to your own argumentation. 

I don't think Huel uses my words and opinions as arguments or as supporting arguments to his own. I think he's capable of forming his own position.
Saying he agrees with me on something is not the same as using my theories and arguments in a discussion.


----------



## Rumple (Oct 29, 2012)

I think his own words says it all.

Solid Bazinga!


----------



## Rumple (Oct 29, 2012)

Off subject **Ok to delete***
Are you getting scrollbars?


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 29, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Off subject **Ok to delete***
> Are you getting scrollbars?


What? I have a scroll bar in the normal location (right side of browser window).


----------



## mr. green thumb 01 (Oct 29, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Can you provide a link to this information.?
> 
> Arjan grows some of the best pot on earth and I would like to copy what he does so i can get the best results possible (advice from the best grower might be better than reading a book on botany if you ask me).
> But I want to read his words for myself.


I was doing a youtube search of Arjan. He has a lot of videos on there. The one I was watching was this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5VsRP_YwX4
At 4:30 they just briefly say "we flush our medium"

I think its funny people still argue but its whatever Arjan is one of the best growers in the world. Id listen to him before k0ijn and SimonD. 

Sorry K0ijn and SimonD, no time to play lately.


----------



## SimonD (Oct 29, 2012)

reggaerican said:


> Once again great post.. And your right! *for the commercial grrower with looks and smell it will sell all the same*, but for the connoisseur grower like myself the flush is a must.


I have a little time today to read the forum, and this comment struck a chord. In essence, the same strain can bring in $3,000 per pound or almost $5,000 per pound. Same strain. Same time devoted to the grow. Same expense and investment, and the same risk. The difference being the (physical) quality of the bud, itself, the smell, taste, and smoothness of the smoke. Say it's a 5lb run. We're talking about $10,000 difference!! There's an _enormous_ financial incentive to produce high quality product. Pretty much everyone tries. As folks can see by the availability in their respective areas, few actually succeed. 

Simon


----------



## akula (Oct 29, 2012)

mr. green thumb 01 said:


> I was doing a youtube search of Arjan. He has a lot of videos on there. The one I was watching was this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5VsRP_YwX4
> At 4:30 they just briefly say "we flush our medium"
> 
> ...


I really do not know if you thought nobody would watch the video you posted, or really didn't comprehend what they said at all. Either way posting this is counter to your argument that GHS and Arjan do a pre-harvest flush and taking that quote completely out of context probably shows how disingenuous you are willing to be to simply "win" this argument. 

Here is the full quote in context:



> This final week of flowering we keep it on a 5.5 PH and a lower 1.4/1.5 EC schedule. We still flush our medium a lot....


That EC level for a plant that big is probably roughly 3/4-2/3 of their peak TDS during flowering for that plant. So they are obviously stepping down their peak flowering TDS. Since they also mentioning maintaining 5.5PH I assume they are using an inert medium, like coco coir mix. It is very common for regular flushes (sometimes as much as weekly), especially given the high TDS schedule they are obviously using. Since I also grow in coco I fully recognize a "medium flush" as opposed to a "pre-harvest flush". Maybe you are unaware of the terminology and how this is not a video that strengthens your position. But IMO, it doesn't weaken it either. I would never base my personal grow on any marketing video anyways. But it does possibly call into question your integrity however.


----------



## akula (Oct 29, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Off subject **Ok to delete***
> Are you getting scrollbars?


Did you expand on a picture associated posted on this domain? If you did you may need to Ctrl- to get it back to "normal" size. Only thing I can think of.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 29, 2012)

akula said:


> I really do not know if you thought nobody would watch the video you posted, or really didn't comprehend what they said at all. Either way posting this is counter to your argument that GHS and Arjan do a pre-harvest flush and taking that quote completely out of context probably shows how disingenuous you are willing to be to simply "win" this argument.
> 
> Here is the full quote in context:
> 
> ...


The green thumb dude doesn't even understand what "professional opinion" means.
When I posted that once he thought I meant I was saying I am a professional grower (whatever the hell that means).

I doubt it he has ever quoted anything correctly here or that he has read any publication/scientific book.
He can't even get through a post on a forum.
Just basing it off the past few post of his I've seen it's pretty clear to see he has no integrity.


----------



## bluntmassa1 (Oct 29, 2012)

mr. green thumb 01 said:


> I was doing a youtube search of Arjan. He has a lot of videos on there. The one I was watching was this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5VsRP_YwX4
> At 4:30 they just briefly say "we flush our medium"
> 
> ...


why don't you try not flushing one plant instead of taking arjan's word for it then you will know for sure which is better. also how do organic growers flush their plants? organic marijuana is sopouse to be the best tasting but when your growing in an organic medium the nutrients are always their no matter how much you flush your plants.
I haven't actually seen a grow from K0ijn but simonD does pretty damn good I'm sure they both have tried flushing yet they don't flush that to me is enough to try it out atleast. unless you have tried it out yourself it makes no sense to argue cause you really have no idea what your talking about. I can sit here and say jorge cervantes and soma say to flush but soma uses an organic medium which defeats the pourpose of flushing.


----------



## HeartlandHank (Oct 29, 2012)

mr. green thumb 01 said:


> I was doing a youtube search of Arjan. He has a lot of videos on there. The one I was watching was this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5VsRP_YwX4
> At 4:30 they just briefly say "we flush our medium"
> 
> ...


Arjan is one of the best growers in the world? Based off of what? 

I agree with Bluntmassa... try out a side by side test. That will answer the question for YOU.

Even then, someone else growing in a different way might find that there is a different answer for them.


----------



## k0ijn (Oct 29, 2012)

bluntmassa1 said:


> why don't you try not flushing one plant instead of taking arjan's word for it then you will know for sure which is better. also how do organic growers flush their plants? organic marijuana is sopouse to be the best tasting but when your growing in an organic medium the nutrients are always their no matter how much you flush your plants.
> I haven't actually seen a grow from K0ijn but simonD does pretty damn good I'm sure they both have tried flushing yet they don't flush that to me is enough to try it out atleast. unless you have tried it out yourself it makes no sense to argue cause you really have no idea what your talking about. I can sit here and say jorge cervantes and soma say to flush but soma uses an organic medium which defeats the pourpose of flushing.


I have posted quite a few pictures.
And some videos.



k0ijn said:


> Ask and you shall receive.
> 
> These are not from my current grow, one is a Dragon Haze (purple-ish) the other a regular Haze:


----------



## MrMeanGreen (Dec 11, 2013)

No science, just a taste test....... Ok so it was rigged but never the less. I invited 2 friends who do partake in the fine art of flushing. They are getting on a bit (mid 40's) and have been doing it their way for time, resistant to change and even struggle with a smart phone. I prestented them with 2 buds claiming one was flushed and one was not when in fact neither were flushed, one was litterally 7-8 days post chop and the other was from my personal and had been curing for a month. Rightly so they spotted the difference and chose the cured bud. Even to this day they refuse to accept that the cured bud was not flushed and they continue with their unbreakable routine. Each to their own, the sun will continue to rise and set at the end of the day.


----------

