# The "I don't starve my plants before harvest" thread



## SirLancelot (Dec 16, 2011)

Yea as the name implies this thread is about bud that isn't starved before it's harvested a.k.a "flushed" Yes there has been many many arguments about flushing vs not flushing. and yet Everyone who is for flushing does it because someone they know, or someone who is their customer/client does it or asks for it. The people who belief that marijuana is like every other living fucking plant and doesn't need flush have all done expirements and have found out for themselves. 

Ok so I don't flush my bud, and my nugs don't burn harsh nor do they get "black or sparky" for all of you that don't know, this is do to a shitty cure not because nutrients magically moved through the roots up the plant stock (if you have troubles believing this just look up how PLANTS take up nutrients, yes MJ is a plant like any other) and decided to just make a home in your buds. If you understood how plants work or had common sense you'd realize that starving something when it's in it's most crucial stages is iresponsible as a grower. Furthermore no one in the history of agriculture flushes their product, the tobacco industry doesn't flush. Why is marijuana so magically different? It's not, so quit trying to make it something more than it is.

Out of 3 blind taste tests NO ONE has ever been able to tell a difference in flushed and unflushed (with a proper cure). If you want to argue that you can taste a difference please explain how you came up with these results as I am always trying to figure out where this theory has actual facts too it. I am always open to intellectual positive conversation. Of course the majority of people who flush don't have intellectual answers to why they flush, they just do. STOP micromanaging a weed. If you grew the plant correctly to begin with your gonna have bomb as nug regardless. If you cure your bud properly you won't have the harsh smoke that is blamed on non-flushed weed. Like I've said I've done this expirement 3 times because someone has somewhat of a point so I test it out again thinking I missed something yet there never is anything different. Also something to remember a Plant is like Us (humans) we all differ from one another in some way. I just recently harvested two plants of the same strain that both tasted completely different after cure. So I can see how easily people can mispercieve their judgments on taste but You have to understand that nothing in this world benifits from starving and eating off of itself the last few weeks of it's life. 

Please fire back with arguments Im open to hear legit answers.

I also figured this would be a good place to show off our "unflushed" babies and how horrible they look/taste since we didn't starve them. Guess you wouldn't smoke this huh?


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 16, 2011)

Im am fucking sick of these arguments. There are legit reasons a flush would be necessary, and excess (usually alot of it) can cause chemically tasting weed. I just got the grow bible by cervantes to go along with my one by green (both great). 
"how to tell when fertilizer will affect taste:
1. leaf tips and fringes are burnt
2. leaves are brittle at harvest
3. buds crackle when burning 
4. buds smell like chemicals
5. buds taste like fertilizer"
On page 76 it says "ten to fourteen days before harvest, flush the garden with distilled water or water treated with reverse osmosis"

Im not saying it is always needed, but certainly sometimes is.
Tell me Cervantes is wrong people. Cmon


----------



## flowamasta (Dec 16, 2011)

I just had to reply! ok first things first, i can i agree with some of what you say, ut i think it depends of the type of grow ur doind, soil?, hydro? , perlite?, coco? they all hold nutrients differently, and towards the end of a plants flower cycle, it needs less and less nitrogen, so flushing in theory, will bring this nitrogen down. this will make a difference in taste, and how it smokes. i flush , i use 100% perlite and i flush 7 days prior to harvest, i think this is plenty enough fresh water for the plant to ingest, and let the plant have its it own original flavour, i have tried otherwise, and prefer this method. i cure slowly in jars and i have people falling asleep during the day on my shit, sparkles like magic! dnt go using those damn trimming machines, goodbye quality. no arguments talk to the pros


----------



## falsebreed (Dec 16, 2011)

i also believe in this i noticed no difference in flushed vs not flushed weed smells like hay only when u dry too fast..


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 16, 2011)

falsebreed said:


> i also believe in this i noticed no difference in flushed vs not flushed weed smells like hay only when u dry too fast..


I personally see little difference whether I flush or not as well, dispite my post. Im saying in some peoples cases it is needed, if they maximize nutes and use lots of synthetics (humbolt county was found to have carcinogens if I recall) it would help to flush and let the plant finish just with water.

That said I dont see much difference even with curing. One strain I have tastes good no matter if its 1 weeks cure or if its 1 month, danky stinky smell and taste. Even if its strait dried no cure, just abit harsher. 
So both flushing and curing are sometimes overrated...
Now I expect to get yelled at for saying curing can be overrated....


----------



## flowamasta (Dec 16, 2011)

to prove this, and THIS WILL PROVE IT!!!. get a nug that is harsh, probably due to chems, (dry ofcourse), and water cure it over 7 days, with fresh water every day, then on day 7 hang to dry again, does not harm potency, as thc is not water soluble, and try the difference, i bet u will, smooth as and it will smell sweeter aswell


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 16, 2011)

flowamasta said:


> to prove this, and THIS WILL PROVE IT!!!. get a nug that is harsh, probably due to chems, (dry ofcourse), and water cure it over 7 days, with fresh water every day, then on day 7 hang to dry again, does not harm potency, as thc is not water soluble, and try the difference, i bet u will, smooth as and it will smell sweeter aswell


so is it that the bud was not cured properly in the first place so water cure does cure it properly? So how much fertilizer is used changes how much cure is needed to get rid of the chems? I thought it was mainly chlorophyl that was "sweat out" during curing. 

Most important question- is it only chlorophyl thats sweat out during cure or other chemicals as well? A list if theres more would be helpful.
I can work with the that.

Hypothesis:
curing is not as necessary if there are less synthetic chems and less fertilizer (and built up salts) in the soil when the plant is cut down.

discuss


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 16, 2011)

flowamasta said:


> to prove this, and THIS WILL PROVE IT!!!. get a nug that is harsh, probably due to chems, (dry ofcourse), and water cure it over 7 days, with fresh water every day, then on day 7 hang to dry again, does not harm potency, as thc is not water soluble, and try the difference, i bet u will, smooth as and it will smell sweeter aswell


you prove nothing, just bring more questions.


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 16, 2011)

I have no fact backing this, but I dont know ur right. I think that some chems that are in a plant (specifically in mj flowers) and all built up (or in excess) are stuck there, unremovable after cutting it down by curing or any other method. but I could be wrong.


----------



## beans davis (Dec 16, 2011)

When you flush in soil plants will still get some nutes,in hydro you're starving them.I'm hydro,Icut the nutes back some the last week,not that much tho.
I tried flushing for 1 week and felt I was depriving my plants.
I could not tell the differance in taste.

Sirlancelot beautiful,nice job.I'll smoke with ya brotha man!


----------



## wbd (Dec 16, 2011)

To me, it seems contradictory to denounce flushing so profusely and then conclude no difference in taste in your own blind tests. 

As bad as you make flushing sound, I would expect your tests to favor the unflushed buds by a significant (or at least noticeable) margin... yet they don't.

Hmmm.


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 16, 2011)

wbd said:


> To me, it seems contradictory to denounce flushing so profusely and then conclude no difference in taste in your own blind tests.
> 
> As bad as you make flushing sound, I would expect your tests to favor the unflushed buds by a significant (or at least noticeable) margin... yet they don't.
> 
> Hmmm.


isnt denounce a negative descriptive word?

anyway if you read my babbling, I support that it is necessary in some cases. Mine, not so much, I try not to use too much nutes, nothing on the very synthetic side (FF trio, I think its close enough to organic, not completely anyways...). 
But read what I posted. There are applications in which flushing will help. But its not always needed. Depends on the situation


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 16, 2011)

wbd said:


> To me, it seems contradictory to denounce flushing so profusely and then conclude no difference in taste in your own blind tests.
> 
> As bad as you make flushing sound, I would expect your tests to favor the unflushed buds by a significant (or at least noticeable) margin... yet they don't.
> 
> Hmmm.


Im sorry when I meant blind taste tests I meant I administered them too others. And no no one could ever guess which was flushed and not. No my results don't favor unflushed significantly because I don't fudge with the statistics. In my experience and in others experience who have done these tests. There is no noticable difference in quality, yield, trichs nor flavor. Their are no nutrients in the raw form hanging out in buds waiting to be rinsed clean. 

I only put down flushing so bad because of what common sense tells me as well as my basic understanding of how plants work.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 16, 2011)

rocknratm said:


> I have no fact backing this, .


Exactly, this is what Im waiting for yet no one can give even a close sensible argument.


----------



## Killer Sativa (Dec 16, 2011)

Since when did potheads care so much? ...Who gives a fuck _flush_ or no _flush. _Do what you like with your plants.
Now pass me the fucking bowl it's my turn.


----------



## thechemist310 (Dec 16, 2011)

I'm on the last leg of my first grow and plan to flush. My reasons are: 1. Jorge Cervantes says so and 2. It'll save me on nutes for the last 2 weeks. 

If it makes no difference in smell, taste, aroma, etc, then do you see measurable differences in quantity by feeding until the end?


----------



## ATL HYDRO (Dec 16, 2011)

I feel compelled to bring up one good point that is always brought up in these threads:

Every cannabis cup entry for the past 10 years has been flushed.

Wanna argue with Grandmaster growers ? I didn't think so. Flush your Hydro for 7 days.


----------



## Datdude910 (Dec 16, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> Im sorry when I meant blind taste tests I meant I administered them too others. And no no one could ever guess which was flushed and not. No my results don't favor unflushed significantly because I don't fudge with the statistics. In my experience and in others experience who have done these tests. There is no noticable difference in quality, yield, trichs nor flavor. Their are no nutrients in the raw form hanging out in buds waiting to be rinsed clean.
> 
> I only put down flushing so bad because of what common sense tells me as well as my basic understanding of how plants work.


If there was no difference in quality or yield then why not save nutes and flush?


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 16, 2011)

ATL HYDRO said:


> I feel compelled to bring up one good point that is always brought up in these threads:
> 
> Every cannabis cup entry for the past 10 years has been flushed.
> 
> Wanna argue with Grandmaster growers ? I didn't think so. Flush your Hydro for 7 days.



Yes I'd love to talk with one so they can give me information on why flushing is good.


----------



## ATL HYDRO (Dec 16, 2011)

Exactly. I don't know why it is good, but if every cannabis cup entrant and winner gets flushed then I am flushing mine at home.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 16, 2011)

Datdude910 said:


> If there was no difference in quality or yield then why not save nutes and flush?


By far the best answer I've heard!! very good point and to answer it prolly doesn't.
I just don't like the idea of starving my plant in the last weeks of life. 

If your an athelete training for the olympics why would you spend all that time getting ready just to starve yourself in the last weeks before the event. seems counter productive Idk I could be very wrong but I doubt it. I understand how plants uptake nutrients and I know chemicals are not hanging out inside the buds. Why spend months keeping em up so well just to fuck with em at the end? I just prefer to keep em green, healthy and happy. I think when you flush and your plants turn all yellow and leaves fall off it looks disguisting and like it's dying. In my MANY MANY years of experience with gardening I know NO plants look like this when fruiting, My veggies always are full green and healthy. (except for my pumpkins this year, they got some wierd fungus on all leaves) I had a tomato plant that was all yellow wilted and shity the fruit from it was shitty as well. I guess I just corrospond dying plants with a shitty end product.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 16, 2011)

ATL HYDRO said:


> Exactly. I don't know why it is good, but if every cannabis cup entrant and winner gets flushed then I am flushing mine at home.


touche, I just can't follow the masses like you I like to find truth in theorys and I've disproved this theory 3 seperate times.


----------



## midijunkie (Dec 16, 2011)

hey if you dont like to flush then dont flush. just seems like another reason to argue here. my buds are flushed. they taste look and smell better than ones that ive not. same strain.. same mama... same growing environment. i feed the hell out of my plants.. if i didnt flush... wow.


----------



## bamfrivet (Dec 16, 2011)

If you feel that flushing is necessary then why not just water cure or after you cut your plant, put it in fresh clean water for 3 days or so. The plant's still alive after you cut it, it'll still uptake water through the stem, which will accomplish the same thing as the miracle flush. Water curing should take more out of your plant than just flushing, so why not feed your plant and get the full potential out of it, then water cure it and take out all those evil nutes that you paid so much to put into your plant.


----------



## Datdude910 (Dec 16, 2011)

Yes I too indeed hate to see my plants leaves shriveled up and brittle. It kinda makes me feel like the plant isn't getting enough of something and it make me feel like a part of it is dying which it is. So i'd say that's a good reason why one wouldn't cure. As for my self I try and always flush if I don't there is a harsh taste. But I guess it also depends on what nutes you use. Have you test tasted a bud before cure?


----------



## aftershock (Dec 17, 2011)

Alright, Im a new grower so you can take my advice with a grain of salt. I don't flush. With one exception. If Im going to reveg the plant, I flush. I don't want excess nutes or salt build ups. As far as chemical taste....Ive never had a problem.


----------



## resinousflowers (Dec 17, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> Yea as the name implies this thread is about bud that isn't starved before it's harvested a.k.a "flushed" Yes there has been many many arguments about flushing vs not flushing. and yet Everyone who is for flushing does it because someone they know, or someone who is their customer/client does it or asks for it. The people who belief that marijuana is like every other living fucking plant and doesn't need flush have all done expirements and have found out for themselves.
> 
> Ok so I don't flush my bud, and my nugs don't burn harsh nor do they get "black or sparky" for all of you that don't know, this is do to a shitty cure not because nutrients magically moved through the roots up the plant stock (if you have troubles believing this just look up how PLANTS take up nutrients, yes MJ is a plant like any other) and decided to just make a home in your buds. If you understood how plants work or had common sense you'd realize that starving something when it's in it's most crucial stages is iresponsible as a grower. Furthermore no one in the history of agriculture flushes their product, the tobacco industry doesn't flush. Why is marijuana so magically different? It's not, so quit trying to make it something more than it is.
> 
> ...


its not being starved.it uses whats stored in its leaves to get it through to harvest,how hard is that to understand?


----------



## resinousflowers (Dec 17, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> Im sorry when I meant blind taste tests I meant I administered them too others. And no no one could ever guess which was flushed and not. No my results don't favor unflushed significantly because I don't fudge with the statistics. In my experience and in others experience who have done these tests. There is no noticable difference in quality, yield, trichs nor flavor. Their are no nutrients in the raw form hanging out in buds waiting to be rinsed clean.
> 
> I only put down flushing so bad because of what common sense tells me as well as my basic understanding of how plants work.


so all these experts in cannabis cultivation and botany are wrong then?i can personally can tell the difference.


----------



## Beansly (Dec 17, 2011)

Growing weed isn't about having pretty plants at harvest....
My 50 years growing commercial mentor is laughing in his grave
God rest his soul.
Your pants never 'starve' if you grow them right.
They don't have the capacity to starve....they don't _feel _anything....
you're putting human emotions on a plant....


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 17, 2011)

resinousflowers said:


> so all these experts in cannabis cultivation and botany are wrong then?i can personally can tell the difference.


If you were to tell a real expert (like an actual botanist) that you "flush" they'd laugh in your face dude. 

Someone mentioned Cervantes earlier, as has been stated before, he copies all his stuff from what he reads elsewhere and makes no effort to try hide it. Ask Uncle Ben, he's in the credits of Cervantes book.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 17, 2011)

Quite a few crops stress their plants towards harvest with the most prominent being wine grapes. Good wine grapes are are extremely stressed prior to being harvested - same goes for olives destined to become oil... 

I like the comparison against large scale row crops... Have you ever seen a farmer of a large scale row crop operation dedicate several large bottles of nutrients to a single plant? The reason for flushing marijuana is that people use way to many nutrients - often to the point that they are actually diminishing yield. 

Have you read a botany/biology book? Nutrients are mobile in the plant... Do you think all cellular respiration takes place in the roots? No silly, it takes place all over. How can you perform cellular respiration requiring particular minerals/nutrients that are all stuck in the roots/soil? Oh wait nutrients move through the plants phloem and xylem...

By all means a flush is not necessary for all people but my god does it make a difference for the people that go overboard on their nutes. If the OP can't taste the difference between unflushed chemed up bud and flushed/organic non chemed up bud than he just doesn't have a very refined pallet.

I like the title though - "starve your plants". Guess what - tomato farmers never add nitrogen late into flower even if their tomatoes plants are turning yellow; they aren't starving their plants they are promoting a natural life cycle. They yield more, sweeter tomatoes with the plants naturally "hungry" for nitrogen than they would if they fed their plants a bunch of nitrogen. "starving" plants is often better for yield than "non starving" plants.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

resinousflowers said:


> its not being starved.it uses whats stored in its leaves to get it through to harvest,how hard is that to understand?


When a living organism doesn't get the nutrients or food it needs to sustain itself it starts eating off of it's stored nutrents/food. That is starving and that is what the plant is doing. You can make it sound special it's just eating whats left in the plant NO it's eating itself. C'mon man get an understanding in Botany then argue.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 17, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Quite a few crops stress their plants towards harvest with the most prominent being wine grapes. Good wine grapes are are extremely stressed prior to being harvested - same goes for olives destined to become oil...
> 
> I like the comparison against large scale row crops... Have you ever seen a farmer of a large scale row crop operation dedicate several large bottles of nutrients to a single plant? The reason for flushing marijuana is that people use way to many nutrients - often to the point that they are actually diminishing yield.
> 
> ...


Bullshit, flushers have so little actual science to back them up they're resorting to say people who don't flush "mustn't have as refined a pallet".

What a ball of shite, pick up some textbooks and start reading. I bet Olive and Grape farmers don't flush, they may stress their plants but depriving them of nutrients is something NO farmers do. 

How come my tomatoes in pots don't taste like chemicals? Iv used Canna Terra for them for ages now.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

resinousflowers said:


> so all these experts in cannabis cultivation and botany are wrong then?i can personally can tell the difference.


Yes they are. and untill someone can PROVE otherwise their all guilty for falling into the "cool kid" club and flushing. It's a marketing scheme open your eyes!


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Growing weed isn't about having pretty plants at harvest....
> My 50 years growing commercial mentor is laughing in his grave
> God rest his soul.
> Your pants never 'starve' if you grow them right.
> ...


With 50yrs of knowledge I'd expect you to know that when something starts feeding on itself because it kind find it's food source thats called starving and when a living organism begins to starve it eats away at itself or what it has stored, not healthy. OK I agree flushing may be neccessary if you dump shit tons of chem ferts in your soil your plant gonna be fucked up but those nutrients aren't magically being transfered throughout the plant Its broken down and used by the plant. I did this thread so people who flushed could come and bring me some facts but all i hear is that if everyone else is doing it then by god Im doing it. BE a big kid research stuff on your own.

P.S santa isn't real. even though the majority of kids believe it


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 17, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Bullshit, flushers have so little actual science to back them up they're resorting to say people who don't flush "mustn't have as refined a pallet".
> 
> What a ball of shite, pick up some textbooks and start reading. I bet Olive and Grape farmers don't flush, they may stress their plants but depriving them of nutrients is something NO farmers do.
> 
> How come my tomatoes in pots don't taste like chemicals? Iv used Canna Terra for them for ages now.


You are saying that you have never tasted chemmed up bud? Never? Really? It just doesn't exist? Big conspiracy for those people that claim they have tasted chemed up bud? Yes, if you have never tasted chemmed up bud then you have ether never smoked it or you cannot differentiate between it and other - which would lead me to believe that your just are not able to taste the difference. This isn't an insult - my fiancee can't tell the difference between tea or coffee varieties, doesn't mean shes a bad person or that all tea/coffee is the same...

Nutrients are most defiantly mobile in plants - would you like me to take pictures of text from my text books? I have multiple here that will all say the same. This is my line of work - I have read the books and I will now advise you to do the same.

If I grow seasonal grass - and it turns brown and dies at the end of the year was it due to starving? The plant is pulling nutrients from parts of its mass to feed other parts of its mass. Oh wait - it would do this even if I gave it as much nutrients as I could - this is natural for seasonal plants? huh? Oh my god!

Gotta love the anthropomorphizing of the cannabis plant...


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Bullshit, flushers have so little actual science to back them up they're resorting to say people who don't flush "mustn't have as refined a pallet".
> 
> What a ball of shite, pick up some textbooks and start reading. I bet Olive and Grape farmers don't flush, they may stress their plants but depriving them of nutrients is something NO farmers do.
> 
> How come my tomatoes in pots don't taste like chemicals? Iv used Canna Terra for them for ages now.


It's funny yes these threads are all over and it's the same arguments yet the individuals who flush do it because that's what others do. Rarely do you find someone who has actually done the test and still believes flushing matters. Im still just waiting for a strong answer with a legit reason why flushing is neccessary. It's just that everything I know about plants (yes including MJ) tells me NOT to do this.

BTW to the dude who says all cannibus cup winners flush so he does. you don't know if they do or not. Im sure theirs a few that are smart like us and realize it isn't neccessary but claims too because the judges and masses of people don't know any better. and if they hear it's unflushed they ultimatly think its bad because of uneducated growers on forums.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> You are saying that you have never tasted chemmed up bud? Never? Really? It just doesn't exist? Big conspiracy for those people that claim they have tasted chemed up bud? Yes, if you have never tasted chemmed up bud then you have ether never smoked it or you cannot differentiate between it and other - which would lead me to believe that your just are not able to taste the difference. This isn't an insult - my fiancee can't tell the difference between tea or coffee varieties, doesn't mean shes a bad person or that all tea/coffee is the same...
> 
> Nutrients are most defiantly mobile in plants - would you like me to take pictures of text from my text books? I have multiple here that will all say the same. This is my line of work - I have read the books and I will now advise you to do the same.
> 
> ...


YES please provide pics and info I'd love to respectfully admit I am wrong.

Seasonal grass? first marijuana isn't seasonal and it producs fruit. grass doesn't. and yes the grass is dying.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

and yes nutrients are mobil once their broken down into what the plant can use and at that point no chemicals are being floated around inside.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 17, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> YES please provide pics and info I'd love to respectfully admit I am wrong.
> 
> Seasonal grass? first marijuana isn't seasonal and it producs fruit. grass doesn't. and yes the grass is dying.


Grass produces seeds just as marijuana does - Marijuana is DEFINITELY a seasonal plant. Pictures are on their way. Would you like them from "Plant Biology", "Environmental Science", or "Botany".

And just for kick what would you say to this logic - I have two plants, A and B of the same strain. 

Plant A was fed less nitrogen than plant B so plant A is yellowing late into flower. Plant B had too much nitrogen and is super dark green in flower. Now the yellowing is due to mobile nitrogen leaving the chloroplasts of lower leaves and traveling to the bud sites where is is being used for seed/flower production. If plant B is more green than plant A it is due to having higher levels of nitrogen. 

So you cut the plants down and cure them - which has more nitrogen? Plant B... Or do you think that nitrogen somehow off gasses during the cure? Plants can't uptake atmospheric nitrogen, but do you think they can somehow take the nitrogen in their cells and just off gas it as atmospheric nitrogen? I'm picking on N because it is easy but this is all applicable to the other minerals/elements.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 17, 2011)

Hard to find a single sentence that conveys all of the information necessary. Hopefully this works for you :

First we agree that nutrients are soluble minerals - 







Yes in fact charged soluble minerals are up-taken through the roots for transport throughout the plant - 







The plant has a vascular system that transports these mobile nutrients... This is all bio 101...







Straight from a standard college textbook. 









SirLancelot said:


> If your an athelete training for the olympics why would you spend all that time getting ready just to starve yourself in the last weeks before the event.


Would you feed him several hamburgers mid sprint a few yards from the finish line? By the last two weeks of flower your plant has already competed and won all of the events - now you want it to do a couple slow laps so it doesn't cramp


----------



## Izoc666 (Dec 17, 2011)

hey SirLanceot, good thread ! +rep for ya.

last night my oldest son and me were smoked my final products...first of all he said damn its the best taste and smooth....we had this convro about flush method, he got the bean from his buddy (hes grower), we smoke their flushed products, taste is okay, just little of harsh , i told my oldest son, your buddy fucked up the drying and curing process thats when we went into a big agrument...so I ended up to plant the same beans , i vegged and flowered, no flush, just gradually nutes down every watering till i harvested....now he can see the difference...i got better quaity of yield and best taste as well...now he knows that flush before harvest is pure myth...i will flush if im fucked up by overfertilization. man i always tell everyone in here, to do the expriement unflush and flush....its very important to do the drying and curing in right way !!!

666


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 17, 2011)

Izoc666 said:


> hey SirLanceot, good thread ! +rep for ya.
> 
> last night my oldest son and me were smoked my final products...first of all he said damn its the best taste and smooth....we had this convro about flush method, he got the bean from his buddy (hes grower), we smoke their flushed products, taste is okay, just little of harsh , i told my oldest son, your buddy fucked up the drying and curing process thats when we went into a big agrument...so I ended up to plant the same beans , i vegged and flowered, no flush, just gradually nutes down every watering till i harvested....now he can see the difference...i got better quaity of yield and best taste as well...now he knows that flush before harvest is pure myth...i will flush if im fucked up by overfertilization. man i always tell everyone in here, to do the expriement unflush and flush....its very important to do the drying and curing in right way !!!
> 
> 666


I thought dropping your nutes at the end of flowering was flushing...

I was under the impression Lancelot was arguing that you should go full steam ahead with nutes at the end and that there will be no difference.


----------



## tip top toker (Dec 17, 2011)

Here's one of the ways in which i see the flushing debate. The debate is huge and never finishes, this in itself rather indicates that flushing canot be important as people say, else the debate would eventually be won by the flushers. I've flushed and not flushed in soil, coco and hydro. I notice no difference. The only thing whihc impats how smooth the smoke is etc, is the drying and curing process.


----------



## wbd (Dec 17, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> Yes they are. and untill someone can PROVE otherwise their all guilty for falling into the "cool kid" club and flushing. It's a marketing scheme open your eyes!


Who praytell is behind this marketing scheme you speak of?


----------



## bamfrivet (Dec 17, 2011)

wbd said:


> Who praytell is behind this marketing scheme you speak of?


the companies that sell you the chemical flushing agent.


----------



## wbd (Dec 17, 2011)

tip top toker said:


> Here's one of the ways in which i see the flushing debate. The debate is huge and never finishes, this in itself rather indicates that flushing canot be important as people say, else the debate would eventually be won by the flushers. I've flushed and not flushed in soil, coco and hydro. I notice no difference. The only thing whihc impats how smooth the smoke is etc, is the drying and curing process.


Agreed, as heated as this debate is you'd think there was overwhelming evidence that flushing is a terrible idea. Maybe it is in theory, but in practice nobody can actually tell the difference. Some guy wrote the other day that he had ruined crops by flushing but never elaborated on what "ruined" meant -- grain of salt.

Of course, to me, if it doesn't make a difference either way, seems like not flushing is the most logical conclusion. But I'm not going to get all bent out of shape if some guy wants to swear up and down that flushing makes his smoke better. I mean, WTF do I care, I don't get to smoke any of his flushed buds anyhow.


----------



## wbd (Dec 17, 2011)

bamfrivet said:


> the companies that sell you the chemical flushing agent.


The recommendation to flush was around around long before flushing agents became popular like they are now. And no marijuana guides I have read ever insist you flush with these products...


----------



## bamfrivet (Dec 17, 2011)

wbd said:


> The recommendation to flush was around around long before flushing agents became popular like they are now. And no marijuana guides I have read ever insist you flush with these products...



Guides, not laws and rules of how the plant must be grown and treated in order to get the best smoke out of it. The flushing myth didn't really come about until nute companies figured out they can charge you to take out what you just put in your soil. Flush if you want, im just throwing out what I've learned from my own personal grows and the different strains I've grown out. Peace.


----------



## wbd (Dec 17, 2011)

bamfrivet said:


> Guides, not laws and rules of how the plant must be grown and treated in order to get the best smoke out of it. The flushing myth didn't really come about until nute companies figured out they can charge you to take out what you just put in your soil. Flush if you want, im just throwing out what I've learned from my own personal grows and the different strains I've grown out. Peace.


Guides, advice from people on the internet, whatever it doesnt matter... the advice has never been "flush with a flushing agent". Not that I've ever seen...


----------



## bamfrivet (Dec 17, 2011)

wbd said:


> Guides, advice from people on the internet, whatever it doesnt matter... the advice has never been "flush with a flushing agent". Not that I've ever seen...


http://www.advancednutrients.com/hydroponics/products/final_phase/final_phase_product_information.php
http://www.humboldtnutrients.com/products/flushing/royal-flush/
http://grotek.net/en/products/product.aspx?id=30
http://www.4hydro.com/hydroponics/florakleen.asp

And this is how myths are started. Companies take your money for over priced nutes. Then they tell you that you need another one of their products to finish the job. You have to pay them to keep your plant alive, then you have to pay them before you can cut it down and enjoy it.

If you don't want the most out of your crops, then by all means flush your plants to death. They are your plants.


----------



## SlimJim503 (Dec 17, 2011)

Stop using fucked up nutrients to grow your shit cuz i use FF trio for soil and super natural for dro ive tried the flush method 3x the amount of water then soil of freash water in dro "true flush" and its all bullshit ruin your plants if you want to but ima squeeze every drop of goodness out of mine. Someone already said this but unless you have ran your own tests and seen first hand the outcome of both methods you should shut your mouth and stop sweating anybody that puts out a book about herb a illegal plant that right there should tell you there are going to be myths some true but most are false made up by people who dont actually grow or assholes trying to fuck up others product so they can have the best in the area. DO YOUR OWN TESTS if you read something dont believe it until you confirm it yourself through your OWN tests. "not saying all herb books are bullshit some of them are ok but they cant teach you anything growing a veggie garden cant. Anyone go out to their apple tree when it has apples and flush the shit out of the soil fuck no if it rains a bunch before you harvest your fruit/veggies what happens? Oh yeah they loose taste and smell even size but why would it be any different for a weed plant oh because a weed plant is magical and not a stupid plant right no you all are tripping. Unless your using something you shouldn't for consumables then you dont need to flush and why the hell would you use something if you didn't want to smoke/eat it in the first place. Everything you find in GOOD nutrients should be able to be found in your garden soil......


----------



## KushDog (Dec 17, 2011)

I have had inproply flushed weed from the compassion club. and i have had flushed bud from there to. Inless the owner was making shuff up about wicth is flush and whicth one wasn't. 

So every body should feed till the end, don't give your plants freash water. feed them right before harvest. because you can just Cure all the nastyness out of it later on. you can get aleast a half gram more, but you gotta compermiss on taste and smokability. but it is worth having a extra gram or two, and nasty smoke. more power to ya.


----------



## cues (Dec 17, 2011)

Old, old argument. No contest. Flush or cough and spit. Been there, done that. Got the holes in the carpet. If you honestly feel that not flushing is better, carry on.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 17, 2011)

KushDog said:


> I have had inproply flushed weed from the compassion club. and i have had flushed bud from there to. Inless the owner was making shuff up about wicth is flush and whicth one wasn't.
> 
> So every body should feed till the end, don't give your plants freash water. feed them right before harvest. because you can just Cure all the nastyness out of it later on. you can get aleast a half gram more, but you gotta compermiss on taste and smokability. but it is worth having a extra gram or two, and nasty smoke. more power to ya.


Have you not been reading or is your reading comprehension just poor? Flushing doesn't effect the final taste, drying and curing does. 

As I said before, I fed my plants 3 days ago and chopped a bid off yesterday to test, it didn't pop, fizzle, crackle, etc after I quick dried t. Tasted like hay but was smooth as fuck...I guess my plants are just somehow "different" or my sense of taste is off? No, I just don't follow myths. Speaking of myth, there's about as much evidence of Hercules being real as there is evidence flushing works.


----------



## SlimJim503 (Dec 17, 2011)

Word of mouth does not come into play in the discussions you need to have grown said herb or otherwise thats all you got word of mouth and thats why there are so many myths hahahaha ever been to a grow shop?


----------



## SlimJim503 (Dec 17, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Have you not been reading or is your reading comprehension just poor? Flushing doesn't effect the final taste, drying and curing does.
> 
> As I said before, I fed my plants 3 days ago and chopped a bid off yesterday to test, it didn't pop, fizzle, crackle, etc after I quick dried t. Tasted like hay but was smooth as fuck...I guess my plants are just somehow "different" or my sense of taste is off? No, I just don't follow myths. Speaking of myth, there's about as much evidence of Hercules being real as there is evidence flushing works.


 hurcles hurcles hahahaha [video=youtube;PxYQQoYfMtQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxYQQoYfMtQ&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## wbd (Dec 17, 2011)

bamfrivet said:


> http://www.advancednutrients.com/hydroponics/products/final_phase/final_phase_product_information.php
> http://www.humboldtnutrients.com/products/flushing/royal-flush/
> http://grotek.net/en/products/product.aspx?id=30
> http://www.4hydro.com/hydroponics/florakleen.asp
> ...


Flush your plants to death? A bit dramatic I think. But if you can tell my how in your own experience that flushing has ever hurt your plants -- not in theory but in terms of yield or perceived quality -- please share.

I don't flush at harvest because I've found it simply doesn't benefit me in any way, and I also don't think this debate is fueled at all by nutrient marketing. There are no threads that read "OMG THIS FLUSHING AGENT ROCKS!!", not that I've seen anyhow. To be honest, I don't think people generally care too much about these products... that's all I was saying.


----------



## bamfrivet (Dec 17, 2011)

wbd said:


> Flush your plants to death? A bit dramatic I think. But if you can tell my how in your own experience that flushing has ever hurt your plants -- not in theory but in terms of yield or perceived quality -- please share.
> 
> I don't flush at harvest because I've found it simply doesn't benefit me in any way, and I also don't think this debate is fueled at all by nutrient marketing. There are no threads that read "OMG THIS FLUSHING AGENT ROCKS!!", not that I've seen anyhow. To be honest, I don't think people generally care too much about these products... that's all I was saying.



flush your plants to death may sound dramatic, but the idea of flushing is; to flush the nutrients out of the soil, making the plant eat up the mobile nutrients the plant has stored in its self, which is a side effect of starvation, you do that for the last 2 weeks, then you cut the plant and hang it, as it dries out it dies. It might sound dramatic, but it's what's happening. 

The point I was making about the flushing agents in that, they are what started the idea that you need to flush your plant. No other farmers flush their plants. These flushing agents are marketed towards cannabis growers. People bought them, got it in their head that you need to get rid of all those nutrients in the plant, then they realized they don't need chemicals to get the nutrients out of the soil, they could just use water. But why does only cannabis need this special treatment? It doesn't.


----------



## thechemist310 (Dec 17, 2011)

wbd said:


> Who praytell is behind this marketing scheme you speak of?


I was wondering this... Wouldn't flushing save nutes? As a business don't you want to sell more product, not less?


----------



## bigv1976 (Dec 17, 2011)

I dont have an opinion either way if flushing improves the smoke or not but I know ALL the best growers in the world flush their plants so I do too.


----------



## bamfrivet (Dec 17, 2011)

thechemist310 said:


> I was wondering this... Wouldn't flushing save nutes? As a business don't you want to sell more product, not less?


First post on page 6, where I listed off 4 companies that sell flushing agents. 2 of them are big name brands marketed towards cannabis growers. People have just learned they don't need chemicals to flush. H_opefully_ people will realize flushing isn't necessary at all.

Water cure you buds if you are afraid that there might be some ferts in you bud.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> I thought dropping your nutes at the end of flowering was flushing...
> 
> I was under the impression Lancelot was arguing that you should go full steam ahead with nutes at the end and that there will be no difference.


whoa not quite My understanding of flushing is when people take gallons of water two weeks before harvest and start dumping only water in draining all nutrients from the plant. + Rept for the info on the uptake I appreciate that. But I think we may be a little confused on our seperate points. I understand how the plant takes up nutrients I get that it's stored in certain cells in the leaves and such. I know how important roots are because they are the mouth of the plant (mainly ofcourse you can foliar feed) I just don't see how "chemicals" are just stored in the bud and how dumping water or solutions in the soil rinses the plant clean I just have a hard time grasping this. And how come this isn't a normal thing to do with every plant? If I asked my grandpa who grew up on a farm about flushing he'd have no idea what Im talking about Hell they didn't flush anything I believe he had an outhouse the first half of his life. lol shitty times.


----------



## lovemug (Dec 17, 2011)

Have you noticed any diference in size between buds given water vs feeding the last two weeks of flowering?


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

thechemist310 said:


> I was wondering this... Wouldn't flushing save nutes? As a business don't you want to sell more product, not less?


what one, two feedings which is usually a couple teaspoons each. personally Im not worried about the 3.50 I'd save. I wouldn't say your plant is going to die from flushing it just seems a little drastic before you chop to flush. Has anyone ever had a plant that was just shit throughout the grow? I once had a plant always was getting burnt and just wasn't that great (since Im small scale I didn't weed out) anyways i thought this shit was gonna suck which it did once it was chopped. I took one hit after it dried and it was sooo harsh and crackly. I threw it in some curing jars for the hell of it and forgot about em. 6mo later or so when I was out i went to the backup jar of this shit. OMG when I opened it holy fuck it smelled so much bettter than before, granite it wasn't my best quality shit but it definatly improved SO MUCh. how come? and why is this always ruled out as maybe the cause for a taste difference? but everytime it's suggested its just shot down with an instant, NO I did it right blah blah. It's just everyone I know who has REALLY done it has reached the position where Im at.

Ok when I don't flush my weed I have chemicals in my buds. But how come I don't have shitty tasting nugs? why do they burn smooth? and how come whenever I administer blind taste tests to others no one can tell which is or isn't? Im keeping a very open mind here and not counting out that flushing possible has it's uses (minus saving a plant from problems) but I just wonder why My end results after a good dry and cure are the same as a plant that was flushed with a good dry and cure? and if there is no difference then I guess it doesn't matter if you do or don't. I just don't see it being benificial to starve something or in other words make it feed off of itself.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

lovemug said:


> Have you noticed any diference in size between buds given water vs feeding the last two weeks of flowering?


I've only done the test 3 times 9 plants total. I don't feel this is enough conclusive evidence to say their was more weight on flushed than not flushed or vis versa. I will say that sometimes they were sometimes they weren't. I don't image doing a flush in the last week or two could cause any sort of effect on yield. Maybe if it's still swelling and growing as a nug and it doesn't have any nutrients left it would be stunted but I haven't done this enough nor with strict variables to answer that. My guess is no one can


----------



## BlazedMonkey (Dec 17, 2011)

Lol poor OP wanted a thread for people who dont flush and now its turned into another Flushing Vs. Not Flushing debate. Lawl. 


Moderation; i think both parties have good points and i personally would taper off my nutes before harvest. 

I bet cannabis cup growers all flush even if they get lower yields because they could care less if they get 3.5g per plant because if the get the best dank in the world its all they need. I would go for a middle road. I dont need to overnute to push yields but im not obsessed to hurt yields for the flush.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 17, 2011)

BlazedMonkey said:


> Lol poor OP wanted a thread for people who dont flush and now its turned into another Flushing Vs. Not Flushing debate. Lawl.
> 
> 
> Moderation; i think both parties have good points and i personally would taper off my nutes before harvest.
> ...


HAHA nah it's all good I got what I was askin for some luv from the peeps who don't flush and some actually valid points from the peeps who do. I agree, about the cannibus cup winners all flushing not because of yields or even any other factor than the fact its so instilled in everyones mind that unflushed weed is bad they don't want to take the chance of not getting entered in for not flushing even if they have the best nugs ya know? like just to cover their asses and make the customers happy even if customers don't really know what they want. Customers are always right!! 

I appreaciate all the answers from everyone and the positive conversations!


----------



## Joedank (Dec 17, 2011)

Large scale ag companies and small farms alike worry about putting enough ferts on there plants cyz its pricey .weed is special in that people with disposeable income grow it and fert the shit out of it... Now if you have figured out that 900pmm and below reduces chances for nute loading...Congrats ... Leaching/flushing is for those of us that want perfect product each and every time...
Now in case your wondering... a cell of a plant has a part that hold nutes/ minerals whatever. When you leach the soil you ask the plant to burn those nutes thus risking a fade or" senencece " witch is natural as the plant should not be full of life at death as that would show it is not properly ready for choppin...
I DO GROW acres of assorted crops and strawberries in particular can taste of ferts if you overdo it...


----------



## laserbrn (Dec 17, 2011)

ATL HYDRO said:


> I feel compelled to bring up one good point that is always brought up in these threads:
> 
> Every cannabis cup entry for the past 10 years has been flushed.
> 
> Wanna argue with Grandmaster growers ? I didn't think so. Flush your Hydro for 7 days.


I missed this thread somehow. I love this post, it's my favorit. Every cannabnis cup entry for the past 10 years has been flushed.... Flush your hydro for 7 days....How many cannabis cup entries have been grown in hdyro?


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 17, 2011)

Description of Harvest Flush:

Pre harvest flushing is a controversial topic. Flushing is supposed to improve taste of the final bud by either giving only pure water, clearing solutions or extensive flushing for the last 7-14 days of flowering. While many growers claim a positive effect, others deny any positive influence or even suggest reduced yield and quality.

The theory of pre harvest flushing is to remove nutrients from the grow medium/root zone. A lack of nutrients creates a deficiency, forcing the plant to translocate and use up its internal nutrient compounds.

Nutrient fundamentals and uptake:

The nutrient uptake process is explained in this faq.

A good read about plant nutrition can be found here.

Until recently it was common thought that all nutrients are absorbed by plant roots as ions of mineral elements. However in newer studies more and more evidence emerged that additionally plant roots are capable of taking up complex organic molecules like amino acids directly thus bypassing the mineralization process.

The major nutrient uptake processes are:

1) Active transport mechanism into root hairs (the plant has to put energy in it, ATP driven) which is selective to some degree. This is one way the plant (being immobile) can adjust to the environment.

2) Passive transport (diffusion) through symplast to endodermis.

chemical ferted plants need to be flushed should be taken with a grain of salt. Organic and synthetic ferted plants take up mineral ions alike, probably to a different degree though. Many influences play key roles in the taste and flavor of the final bud, like the nutrition balance and strength throughout the entire life cycle of the plant, the drying and curing process and other environmental conditions.

3) Active transport mechanism of organic molecules into root hairs via endocytosis.


Here is a simplified overview of nutrient functions:

Nitrogen is needed to build chlorophyll, amino acids, and proteins. Phosphorus is necessary for photosynthesis and other growth processes. Potassium is utilized to form sugar and starch and to activate enzymes. Magnesium also plays a role in activating enzymes and is part of chlorophyll. Calcium is used during cell growth and division and is part of the cell wall. Sulfur is part of amino acids and proteins.

Plants also require trace elements, which include boron, chlorine, copper, iron, manganese, sodium, zinc, molybdenum, nickel, cobalt, and silicon.

Copper, iron, and manganese are used in photosynthesis. Molybdenum, nickel, and cobalt are necessary for the movement of nitrogen in the plant. Boron is important for reproduction, while chlorine stimulates root growth and development. Sodium benefits the movement of water within the plant and zinc is needed for enzymes and used in auxins (organic plant hormones). Finally, silicon helps to build tough cell walls for better heat and drought tolerance.


You can get an idea from this how closely all the essential elements are involved in the many metabolic processes within the plant, often relying on each other.

Nutrient movement and mobility inside the plant:

Besides endocytosis, there are two major pathways inside the plant, the xylem and the phloem. When water and minerals are absorbed by plant roots, these substances must be transported up to the plant's stems and leaves for photosynthesis and further metabolic processes. This upward transport happens in the xylem. While the xylem is able to transport organic compounds, the phloem is much more adapted to do so.

The organic compounds thus originating in the leaves have to be moved throughout the plant, upwards and downwards, to where they are needed. This transport happens in the phloem. Compounds that are moving through the phloem are mostly:
Sugars as sugary saps, organic nitrogen compounds (amino acids and amides, ureides and legumes), hormones and proteins.

Not all nutrient compounds are moveable within the plant.

1) N, P, K, Mg and S are considered mobile: they can move up and down the plant in both xylem and phloem.
Deficiency appears on old leaves first.

2) Ca, Fe, Zn, Mo, B, Cu, Mn are considered immobile: they only move up the plant in the xylem.
Deficiency appears on new leaves first.

Storage organelles:
Salts and organic metabolites can be stored in storage organelles. The most important storage organelle is the vacuole, which can contribute up to 90% of the cell volume. The majority of compounds found in the vacuole are sugars, polysaccharides, organic acids and proteins though.

Translocation:
Now that the basics are explained, we can take a look at the translocation process. It should be already clear that only mobile elements can be translocated through the phloem. Immobile elements cant be translocated and are not more available to the plant for further metabolic processes and new plant growth.

Since flushing (in theory) induces a nutrient deficiency in the rootzone, the translocation process aids in the plants survival. Translocation is transportation of assimilates through the phloem from source (a net exporter of assimilate) to sink (a net importer of assimilate). Sources are mostly mature fan leaves and sinks are mostly apical meristems, lateral meristem, fruit, seed and developing leaves etc.

You can see this by the yellowing and later dying of the mature fan leaves from the second day on after flushing started. Developing leaves, bud leaves and calyxes dont serve as sources, they are sinks. Changes in those plant parts are due to the deficient immobile elements which start to indicate on new growth first.

Unfortunately, several metabolic processes are unable to take place anymore since other elements needed are no longer available (the immobile ones). This includes processes where nitrogen and phosphorus, which have likely the most impact on taste, are involved.

For example nitrogen: usually plants use nitrogen to form plant proteins. Enzyme systems rapidly reduce nitrate-N (NO3-) to compounds that are used to build amino-nitrogen which is the basis for amino acids. Amino acids are building blocks for proteins, most of them are plant enzymes responsible for all the chemical changes important for plant growth.

Sulfur and calcium among others have major roles in production and activating of proteins, thereby decreasing nitrate within the plant. Excess nitrate within the plant may result from unbalanced nutrition rather than an excess of nitrogen.

Summary:
Preharvest flushing puts the plant(s) under serious stress. The plant has to deal with nutrient deficiencies in a very important part of its cycle. Strong changes in the amount of dissolved substances in the root-zone stress the roots, possibly to the point of direct physical damage to them. Many immobile elements are no more available for further metabolic processes. We are losing the fan leaves and damage will show likely on new growth as well.

The grower should react in an educated way to the plant needs. Excessive, deficient or unbalanced levels should be avoided regardless the nutrient source. Nutrient levels should be gradually adjusted to the lesser needs in later flowering. Stress factors should be limited as far as possible. If that is accomplished throughout the entire life cycle, there shouldnt be any excessive nutrient compounds in the plants tissue. It doesnt sound likely to the author that you can correct growing errors (significant lower mobile nutrient compound levels) with pre-harvest flushing.

Drying and curing (when done right) on the other hand have proved (In many studies) to have a major impact on taste and flavor, by breaking down chlorophyll and converting starches into sugars. Most attributes blamed on unflushed buds may be the result of unbalanced nutrition and/or overfert and unproper drying/curing.


----------



## greenberg138 (Dec 18, 2011)

your shit sparkles? lol dang thats blingin!!!!!!!


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> Description of Harvest Flush:
> 
> Pre harvest flushing is a controversial topic. Flushing is supposed to improve taste of the final bud by either giving only pure water, clearing solutions or extensive flushing for the last 7-14 days of flowering. While many growers claim a positive effect, others deny any positive influence or even suggest reduced yield and quality.
> 
> ...


alright! thats what Im talking about, thanks for the info.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> alright! thats what Im talking about, thanks for the info.


If only Riddlem3 knew what he'd started, lol.


----------



## kush groove (Dec 18, 2011)

i used to flush because everyone told me to....now i dont and my buds get much fatter all the way through flowering......if your not using harsh chemicals, there is no need to flush.........my buds smell great, smoke great, vape wonderfully and taste amazing.....and on top of that i have huge buds without wasting a shitload of cash on strange super products....my noob days are over.....bat guano and seaweed is all i use

4 growing myths we all fell victim to:
1. flushing before harvest (some cases)......needed when using harsh chemicals late in flowering; stops growth of new flowers
2. 56-60 day harvest (some cases).......i let some of my plants go past 80 days and they only got fatter and fatter; wouldnt be possible if plants were flushed from week 6 or 7
3. curing bud......not nearly a necessity, much more of a fine art that very few have mastered
4. additives......money, money, money; wasted loads of cash on plant foods and magic tricks, not realizing genetics and common sense was the most important

we all learned a lot from reading books and the internet, but trial and error speaks for itself


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 18, 2011)

Please stop comparing MJ to row crops. In row crops you apply fertilizer once or twice - after this you irrigate, water, and it rains which means throughout the year the nutrients are being used by the plants and being leeched out of the soil. They start out with lots of nutrients and then the nutes are tapered off at the end...just like flushing. At the end of the year for row crops your nutrients are for the most part depleted or you put way too much (which generally gets you into a ton of trouble with the army corps). 

Growing marijuana you add nutrients every other watering up until harvest...little different. So you're growing in soil with nutrient levels 10x that of regular farmers. Your soil has a CEC (this is how much nutrients can bind to it) as well as having water retention. The water the soil hold has dissolved nutrients in it. If you do not taper down your nutrients at the end of your grow (in which case flushing isn't necessary) then you have more nutrients than necessary. If you pour water through your soil you will "flush" out the water born nutrients. You are essentially flushing out the water soil solution - nothing else. 

So you harm your plants by water logging them but you aren't starving them - remember that your soil has a CEC which means that there is still nutrients stuck to the soil - these nutrients your plant can still use. 

Why get rid of extra nutrients? One reason is the salts - most chemical nutrients are salts. You've been adding these salts in high measures every other watering - they accumulate. You know ppm? ec? Well that's a measure of the salts in your water. Electro conductivity measure the difference in how electricity passes through saline solution versus plain water... Does salinity effect crops? Yes... But don't take my word for it, here a University paper - http://www.springerlink.com/content/u05616347774w440/

I have to run but I'll brush up on plant mobile and plant immobile nutrients and minerals when I get back. Some nutrients/minerals are fixed in place in the plant - others can move after being fixed in place. This means that the plant has plenty of extra resources, by letting it mobilize and utilize the excess material into something smokeable, say a fuller calyx or more trichs, you get a better smoke than just burning and inhaling the mineral/nutrient in whatever other state it happens to be in (likely tied up as a chloroplast).


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 18, 2011)

Seems like these topics never die.

If we can at least keep it factual and informational instead of turning it into a poo throwing fight.
I have had to delete some posts, name calling, harassment etc will not be tolerated. 
Please just keep it an informational and grown up discussion.


----------



## cues (Dec 18, 2011)

I flush with water. Don't even bother to pH it.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> I have had to delete some posts, name calling, harassment etc will not be tolerated.
> .


Huh? have you now? how does that work?


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Please stop comparing MJ to row crops. In row crops you apply fertilizer once or twice - after this you irrigate, water, and it rains which means throughout the year the nutrients are being used by the plants and being leeched out of the soil. They start out with lots of nutrients and then the nutes are tapered off at the end...just like flushing. At the end of the year for row crops your nutrients are for the most part depleted or you put way too much (which generally gets you into a ton of trouble with the army corps).
> 
> Growing marijuana you add nutrients every other watering up until harvest...little different. So you're growing in soil with nutrient levels 10x that of regular farmers. Your soil has a CEC (this is how much nutrients can bind to it) as well as having water retention. The water the soil hold has dissolved nutrients in it. If you do not taper down your nutrients at the end of your grow (in which case flushing isn't necessary) then you have more nutrients than necessary. If you pour water through your soil you will "flush" out the water born nutrients. You are essentially flushing out the water soil solution - nothing else.
> 
> ...


nice,
Im not arguing the fact of nutrients inside the plants moving around I understand this concept. Thanks for the link but this is something I already knew. But what I don't know how are chemicals stored in the buds? Yes your right not to compare row crops with MJ because of the nute difference didn't look at it like that. But once the roots break down the nutrients in the soil for the plant to uptake and it's in the plant why would you want to rinse it out? and how could that even be possible if the nutes are stored in cells and stuff. the water enters these cells and just cleanses them out? So if a plant grows in a tropical area where it rains all the time then I guess that plant woud suffer from lack of nutrients correct? since the water would constantly be washing the nutrients out of the plant. I just can't grasp how you can rinse the plant clean from "chemicals" 

ok for the record I TOTALLY agree flushing is neccessary for those that dump and dump shit into your soil not because of the taste but because of how bad it is for the roots and plant in general. causing many many problems. I have flushed before when I've used too much SS in a pot my plant kept getting burnt worse and worse so I ran lots of water through it and it eventually evened out but how does that wash out what's in the plant?


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

For a good experiment since I shouldn't compare regular plants with MJ. I have an orange tree, and chili plants in my flower tent before I harvest those I will flush them and see if their is a difference.

Im betting I get the same results... No difference.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> Huh? have you now? how does that work?


I don't follow?

I'm moderating this forum section, and it seems all flushing / leaching 'discussions' turn into kindergarden fights, the post I made is to prevent that happening here


----------



## cannawizard (Dec 18, 2011)

*you need to add a lil stress; if you want to find og Cannabis fit to advance~ ..Nature knows best~ sprinkle lil pain & suffering; lmfao j.k j.k


 ..cheers


----------



## bigv1976 (Dec 18, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> I don't follow?
> 
> I'm moderating this forum section, and it seems all flushing / leaching 'discussions' turn into kindergarden fights, the post I made is to prevent that happening here


Man i am glad youre here.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 18, 2011)

falsebreed said:


> i also believe in this i noticed no difference in flushed vs not flushed weed smells like hay only when u dry too fast..


Mj should never be dried to fast, to many suedo science smartphone users growing these days with a copy of high school plant botany in hand, lmao, THC as it looses weight and water will begin a number of proccess that include conversions of existing terpins, and thc, cbn, cbd , and only after a RH of 55% has been reached with the process stop, and if you fuck up you get HAY thats it folks


----------



## SFguy (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> YES please provide pics and info I'd love to respectfully admit I am wrong.
> 
> Seasonal grass? first marijuana isn't seasonal and it producs fruit. grass doesn't. and yes the grass is dying.




ummm your wrong, it produces a flower nig nog not a fruit


----------



## bigv1976 (Dec 18, 2011)

Here comes the name calling.


----------



## SFguy (Dec 18, 2011)

cannawizard said:


> *you need to add a lil stress; if you want to find og Cannabis fit to advance~ ..Nature knows best~ sprinkle lil pain & suffering; lmfao j.k j.k
> 
> 
> ..cheers


you hit the nail on the head sir + rep

its not abotu massively stressing the plant, its about SPRINKLE ME SPRINKLE ME.. =)


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 18, 2011)

fucking hell, you people

grass like and other plant will have phases it goes into and jsut because it doesnt make a flower that when smoked makes you feel you asshole, doesnt mean it does not have a fruiting stage of life

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1791.pdf

you people drive me nuts with your stupidity


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 18, 2011)

in botany a "fruit" is a part of a flowering plant that derives from specific tissues of the flower, mainly one or more ovaries. Taken strictly, this definition excludes many structures that are "fruits" in the common sense of the term, such as those produced by non-flowering plants (like juniper berries, which are the seed-containing female cones of conifers.[SUP][1][/SUP])


----------



## bigv1976 (Dec 18, 2011)

Since when do males produce seeds? with statements like that you shouldnt be calling anyone a tard.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 18, 2011)

lets run with the typo ya, im a puppet


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> I don't follow?
> 
> I'm moderating this forum section, and it seems all flushing / leaching 'discussions' turn into kindergarden fights, the post I made is to prevent that happening here



ah gotcha (in an embarresed way) my bad. Appreciate the look out! lol


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

SFguy said:


> ummm your wrong, it produces a flower nig nog not a fruit


lol I was stoned and after I wrote that I realized what I said, but yea your right im wrong. I was thinking of something else when I said it wasn't seasonal. I was thinking of an annual (my bad stoned moment). and yea my bad flower not fruit.... 

Oh btw thanks for the positive input on flushing... 

lol nig nog no response needed...


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

I just wanted to note an observation of mine. WHenever I google "can you flush nutrients out of plants" or something similar I only get links to marijuana forums and nutrient companys. I only went to page 10 before giving up but I thought it was interesting that in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD OF INTERNET whenever you type in flushing nutrients out of plants nothing can be found except links that will send you right here... Shocking only the MJ industry flushes.


----------



## cannawizard (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> I just wanted to note an observation of mine. WHenever I google "can you flush nutrients out of plants" or something similar I only get links to marijuana forums and nutrient companys. I only went to page 10 before giving up but I thought it was interesting that in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD OF INTERNET whenever you type in flushing nutrients out of plants nothing can be found except links that will send you right here... Shocking only the MJ industry flushes.


*common sense isnt so common


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> nice,
> Im not arguing the fact of nutrients inside the plants moving around I understand this concept. Thanks for the link but this is something I already knew. But what I don't know how are chemicals stored in the buds? Yes your right not to compare row crops with MJ because of the nute difference didn't look at it like that. But once the roots break down the nutrients in the soil for the plant to uptake and it's in the plant why would you want to rinse it out? and how could that even be possible if the nutes are stored in cells and stuff. the water enters these cells and just cleanses them out? So if a plant grows in a tropical area where it rains all the time then I guess that plant woud suffer from lack of nutrients correct? since the water would constantly be washing the nutrients out of the plant. I just can't grasp how you can rinse the plant clean from "chemicals"
> 
> ok for the record I TOTALLY agree flushing is neccessary for those that dump and dump shit into your soil not because of the taste but because of how bad it is for the roots and plant in general. causing many many problems. I have flushed before when I've used too much SS in a pot my plant kept getting burnt worse and worse so I ran lots of water through it and it eventually evened out but how does that wash out what's in the plant?


Plants always like to have a surplus. If you have healthy plants going into the last two weeks of flower they have a surplus - more nutrients necessary for the time being - even enough nutrients for the next few weeks. For most healthy plants; if you remove all nutrients they will be fine for several weeks. Now when we flush we strip out the surplus of nutrients in the soil. We don't strip out 100%, likely not even 50%, just some of the extra - stripping out more that 75% of the nutrients is really really hard. So your plants already have enough nutrients stored for the last two weeks and there is still enough in the soil even if they didn't already have it stored. So your healthy plants going into the last two weeks will most definitely not starve.

But hey, they will do this - 



Brick Top said:


> Translocation:
> Now that the basics are explained, we can take a look at the translocation process. It should be already clear that only mobile elements can be translocated through the phloem. Immobile elements cant be translocated and are not more available to the plant for further metabolic processes and new plant growth.


Most of BrickTops info was dead on but I'm lost as to where he came up with his summary. I've never hear of someone flushing their plants to the point of killing off roots, stressing a plant, or causing any type of deficiency - I feel you would literally have to be pouring 4x the volume of water as soil through the plants every day for a week and I can't imagine anyone doing that. Have you ever seen anyone flush till they had deficiencies? I haven't. 

So your plant notices that there is less available nutrients in the soil as before and it has only a few more weeks of life (remember this is an annual plant and will die at the end of the season regardless) so the plant is going to dedicate all the rest of its available energy and nutrient towards flower and seed production (this is the end all be all of plant goals). So the plant starts to translocate nutrients - this is good! You are getting rid of surplus material, material that does you no good to smoke. 

Lets do a for instance - (this is all very simplified)
Plant A and plant B are the same and are each have a surplus of 100N 100P 100K
Both plants use 5N, 5P, and 5K each day to produce 15 units of calyx/THC 

Both plants have been fed generously so the soil is quite saturated with nutrients. Plant A will recieve a full load of nutes till the last day, plant B gets a flush and no nutes till the last day. 

Day 1: 
Plant A: Starts with surplus of 100N 100P 100K || Uptakes 7N 7P 7K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 102N 102P 102K and 15Calyx/THC
Day 2: 
Plant A: Starts with surplus of 102N 102P 102K || Uptakes 7N 7P 7K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 104N 104P 104K and 30Calyx/THC
Day 3: 
Plant A: Starts with surplus of 104N 104P 104K || Uptakes 7N 7P 7K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 106N 106P 106K and 45Calyx/THC
Day 4: 
Plant A: Starts with surplus of 106N 106P 106K || Uptakes 7N 7P 7K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 108N 108P 108K and 60Calyx/THC
Day 14:
Plant A: Starts with surplus of 126N 126P 126K || Uptakes 7N 7P 7K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 128N 128P 128K and 210Calyx/THC

This plant was flushed and no longer received additional nutrients
Day 1:
Plant B: Starts with surplus of 100N 100P 100K || Uptakes 5N 5P 5K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 100N 100P 100K and 15Calyx/THC
Day 2:
Plant B: Starts with surplus of 100N 100P 100K || Uptakes 4N 4P 4K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 99N 99P 99K and 30Calyx/THC
Day 3:
Plant B: Starts with surplus of 99N 99P 99K || Uptakes 3N 3P 3K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 97N 97P 97K and 45Calyx/THC
Day 4:
Plant B: Starts with surplus of 97N 97P 97K || Uptakes 2N 2P 2K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 94N 94P 94K and 60Calyx/THC
Day 14:
Plant B: Starts with surplus of 54N 54P 54K || Uptakes 1N 1P 1K || Uses 5N 5P 5K || Ends with surplus of 50N 50P 50K and 210Calyx/THC

So plant a is 210 calyx/THC which gets you high and an additional 128 units of N, P, and K which you will combust and inhale (but they don't do you anygood). 
Or you can have plant B which is also 210 calyx/THC but less than half of the extra N, P, and K... Ratio wise plant B has a higher content of THC/Calyx to the other stuff. I personally would rather inhale less of the surplus material.




SirLancelot said:


> lol I was stoned and after I wrote that I realized what I said, but yea your right im wrong. I was thinking of something else when I said it wasn't seasonal. I was thinking of an annual (my bad stoned moment).


Seasonal and annual generally mean the same thing... Perennial is the alternative. Don't know why but I'm always stuttering on these as well. 



SirLancelot said:


> For a good experiment since I shouldn't compare regular plants with MJ. I have an orange tree, and chili plants in my flower tent before I harvest those I will flush them and see if their is a difference.
> 
> Im betting I get the same results... No difference.


Aside from comparing trees to marijuana being simply laughable lets talk about variables. For comparisons you need to keep variables the same. Say you want to compare the orange tree and a MJ plant when it comes to super heavy fertilization and the effects on the fruiting body. A roughly 3 pound marijuana plant is often fed 1/3 of a bottle of three different chemical solutions during its short life. The standard weight of a bottle of nutrients is 2lbs which means a 3 lb plant would receive ~2lbs of bottled nutrients in lets say a 60 day flower. For every one pound of wet plant it received 0.025 bottles of fertilizer per day of flower. 

Ok so if you want to keep variables the same you should feed your orange tree the same ratio of nutrients to its own weight over it's given flowering period. How much does it weigh? 1 ton? If 1 ton you would need to feed your orange plant 16.6 bottles of nutrient per day. I want to see this experiment. Feed your orange tree 16 bottles of bloom feed every day while it is flowering and tell me if the oranges taste different.



SirLancelot said:


> Shocking only the MJ industry flushes.


What other industries use the same ridiculously high amount of fertilizers to produce their crops? None... How many of these non existent industries produce a material you combust and then inhale? None...


----------



## bryon209 (Dec 18, 2011)

Flushng is not "good" for any plant but in the commercial greenhouse every cut flower is flushed two weeks before to hold color and scent better....One way or the other...I know people who would never touch a black grl , I get black hookers all the time...its a thing of preference


----------



## KushDog (Dec 18, 2011)

strawberrys stop feeding 10 days before harvest. http://www.ehow.com/way_5767380_homemade-fertilizer-strawberry-plants.html


Garlic stop feed 1 month before harvest http://www.harvestwizard.com/2011/09/garlic_growing_tips.html


"is important to stop using any chemical-based fertilizers before harvest and to wash any tomato before Eating"​


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> I just wanted to note an observation of mine. WHenever I google "can you flush nutrients out of plants" or something similar I only get links to marijuana forums and nutrient companys. I only went to page 10 before giving.....



For an example I used your key words; "can you flush nutrients out of plants" and Google found "About 12,400,000 results." The problem is the most active/most accessed and newest of messages or bits of information are found first. That means page after page after page after page of opinion posted on grow sites, information from breeders/seed sales sites and much watched YouTube videos of people's personal beliefs or opinions, often only parroting what they heard or read on the previously mentioned sites, are what most people ever see/find when they research something.

The best information I have ever found has been after, and sometimes well after page 100 or so in a search, waaaaaay back there where most people never go because they give up or think they must have found the accurate answer long before. 

Buried as deep as it can be buried you can often find actual scientific research. An abstract will be free but for the complete study you do need to pay. In the past I paid a number of times and then for about two years, until a computer died, I had a list of passwords that worked on most of the scientific research sites I would find. 

When you read what people with PhDs and whose life's work it is to research plants/plants functions/plant actions/plant reactions, including intensive research of cannabis plants, and who have the highest tech equipment in existence to rely on and perform their research in a highly controlled environment and who use multiple control groups to use to maintain an accurate baseline you would be amazed at how different their research findings often are from the opinions and beliefs of the Beavis and Buttheads who fill grow sites, and who also LOVE to believe they know it all. 

I have said it many times, that sites like this, meaning grow sites in general, like to be seen as, and are seen as by most users, as Colleges of Cannabis but in reality they are Universities of Ignorance where half-truths, misconceptions, total inaccuracies, myths, urban legends and old hippie folklore that has been repeated so many times over the years has become accepted truths and accepted facts. 

If someone posts a scientifically proven fact that is contrary to the accepted and believed half-truths, misconceptions, total inaccuracies, myths, urban legends and old hippie folklore that person is usually ripped to shreds and buried under a mountain of inaccurate, or at least partially inaccurate, information that overflows from sites like this. 

While some grow books are pretty good a fair number of them, at least to some degree, fall back on the same old half-truths, misconceptions, total inaccuracies, myths, urban legends and old hippie folklore about certain facets of growing.

Finding scientifically proven facts can be very difficult and very time consuming and it can even cost you money to access it. But vast mountain ranges of opinions are beliefs based on half-truths, misconceptions, total inaccuracies, myths, urban legends and old hippie folklore can easily be found in seconds or minutes and all are free.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

KushDog said:


> strawberrys stop feeding 10 days before harvest. http://www.ehow.com/way_5767380_homemade-fertilizer-strawberry-plants.html
> 
> 
> Garlic stop feed 1 month before harvest http://www.harvestwizard.com/2011/09/garlic_growing_tips.html
> ...


lol dude your still hear? you dont even know what your talking about.


----------



## purklize (Dec 18, 2011)

> Finding scientifically proven facts can be very difficult and very time consuming


So true BT. I have spent most of my time since becoming a meidcal grower sorting the facts from the bullshit. Most of what I've read has been bullshit. I was in a grow shop the other day, and what happened symbolizes this nicely. This super enthusiastic grower started chatting with me, telling me how amazing organic growing is and trying to get me to go from hydro back to organic. I wasn't going for it, and someone else chimed in: "Have you ever compared organic vs hydro for the same cut?" "Yes..." "Could you tell the difference blind?" "Well, no.. but..." "No buts, that means there's no real difference!"


----------



## KushDog (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> lol dude your still hear? you dont even know what your talking about.


I have no idea what i am talking about... FYI LOL


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Plants always like to have a surplus. If you have healthy plants going into the last two weeks of flower they have a surplus - more nutrients necessary for the time being - even enough nutrients for the next few weeks. For most healthy plants; if you remove all nutrients they will be fine for several weeks. Now when we flush we strip out the surplus of nutrients in the soil. We don't strip out 100%, likely not even 50%, just some of the extra - stripping out more that 75% of the nutrients is really really hard. So your plants already have enough nutrients stored for the last two weeks and there is still enough in the soil even if they didn't already have it stored. So your healthy plants going into the last two weeks will most definitely not starve.
> 
> But hey, they will do this -
> 
> ...


DAMNIT! I meant perineal, Im just gonna shut up now... ok ok ok I hear ya but I've had plants that eat more than another every feeding so how can you really know what amounts are in each? and I don't get where you get those numbers? and how you know there accurate. 

I wish my orange tree weighed a ton lol. it's only 2 1/2 feet tall in a 5gal and it gets fed when all my other plants get fed ( I know Im not suppose to but I get SUPER CHILI's and SUPER ORANGES multiple times a year.) but yea their on the same feed schedule.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> DAMNIT! I meant perineal, Im just gonna shut up now... ok ok ok I hear ya but I've had plants that eat more than another every feeding so how can you really know what amounts are in each? and I don't get where you get those numbers? and how you know there accurate.
> 
> I wish my orange tree weighed a ton lol. it's only 2 1/2 feet tall in a 5gal and it gets fed when all my other plants get fed ( I know Im not suppose to but I get SUPER CHILI's and SUPER ORANGES multiple times a year.) but yea their on the same feed schedule.


The numbers I pulled out of my ass which is what was supposed to by implied when I said "This is very simplified". The numbers are to demonstrate the idea at play - adding to a surplus versus using it up while still having production remain constant. N+P+K most definitely does not actually equal THC and a calyx... 

Information on deficits and surpluses can be found in any plant bio book.

Getting the numbers on each particular plant isn't necessary as long as you are subtracting from the deficit versus adding to it. A healthy plant going into the last two weeks of flower will have enough of a surplus to finish so continuing to add nutrients continues to increase the surplus and reducing the amount of nutrients helps get rid of it. 

Of course there are always exceptions! I will never argue that there will always be exceptions. Now and then you will get a super hungry plant that needs boosts of N late into flower - that's fine! But I would strongly argue about going into the last few waters at maximum strength all the time regardless of whether the plants needs it or not - and I have found in most cases it will not need it.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 18, 2011)

ok but how does this affect taste?


----------



## KushDog (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> ok but how does this affect taste?


 it dont taste like chemicals


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> ok but how does this affect taste?


 This V


KushDog said:


> it dont taste like chemicals



I know you have never tasted chemmed up bud but plenty of us have and it is not desirable. Chemmed up bud smokes and tastes very different in a negative way. 

I have had the same bud (same mother, same grow style, same medium, same nutes, same light, same cure...) that was grown with higher and lower levels of nutrients towards the end of the grow and there is a difference.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 18, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> I just wanted to note an observation of mine. WHenever I google "can you flush nutrients out of plants" or something similar I only get links to marijuana forums and nutrient companys. I only went to page 10 before giving up but I thought it was interesting that in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD OF INTERNET whenever you type in flushing nutrients out of plants nothing can be found except links that will send you right here... Shocking only the MJ industry flushes.





cannawizard said:


> *common sense isnt so common



cause we smoke corn and tulips and apples and all these other plants that you talk of

and burning things is the same as eating them right

common sense fucking eh

these same people(government regulatory agencies) that define what is safe or not for consumption say that because avocado are eaten the least(national yearly consumption) they can be sprayed with miticides and pesticides in amounts that would be toxic in other produce because nation ingestion rates are lower then other edible vegetables

give me a break


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 18, 2011)

Dear Jesus people, you don't get "chemmed up" bud from nutrients. How many times does this have to be repeated? I don't flush, my bud doesn't taste like chemicals...explain?

Also I hear alot of people saying plants "use up" or translocate minerals during the flush. Where do you think it goes to? Plants dont excrete nutrients, and generally speaking when they're translocated they move UP TO THE BUDS. 

Explain to me now how the flush is supposed to effect immobile nutrients like Calcium, Iron, etc?

As usual, no botany or science to back up flushing, not even any logic or common sense either.


----------



## BigBuddahCheese (Dec 18, 2011)

I have done both.. and me and my patients never noticed one bit of difference. Both smoke extremely smooth, smell and taste like the strain, and ashes are white.. hmm. Dunno but I feed them till they get chopped.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 18, 2011)

BigBuddahCheese said:


> I have done both.. and me and my patients never noticed one bit of difference. Both smoke extremely smooth, smell and taste like the strain, and ashes are white.. hmm. Dunno but I feed them till they get chopped.


Do they yield the same as well?


----------



## LaudanumRx (Dec 18, 2011)

If you grow your nugs properly and don't let them get all crispy and partially dead on the stem, then and only then, will flushing make a difference. If your shit is crispy from high temps, poor circulation, over ferting, whatever - - - well then that part of the plant is dead an no water is circulating through it. I say this because I see a LOT of crispy shit floating around the web.

So if you have done your crop well and it still looks alive and fresh, then flush for a good week. Don't starve them. Maybe give them some sugar or something. Clearex is good.

But if you have done a crap job and your shit is all crispy then flushing is the least of your concerns. (Don't give up though! That's what these forums are for is to learn!!!)

The fact of the matter is that most of us bought for longer than we grew and we smoked a million weird chemicals in shitty commercial weed. So, if you can flush all that crap out then your body will thank you but if you smoke a little chemmies it can't be any worse than all the shit you already smoked!!!


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 19, 2011)

it would be nice to here from some chemical testers business as there return results from chemical testings of bud might shed soem light on the chemical composition of "flushed" or non flushed bud and what nutrients were used. . . . . . .?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

LaudanumRx said:


> If you grow your nugs properly and don't let them get all crispy and partially dead on the stem, then and only then, will flushing make a difference. If your shit is crispy from high temps, poor circulation, over ferting, whatever - - - well then that part of the plant is dead an no water is circulating through it. I say this because I see a LOT of crispy shit floating around the web.
> 
> So if you have done your crop well and it still looks alive and fresh, then flush for a good week. Don't starve them. Maybe give them some sugar or something. Clearex is good.
> 
> ...


Clearex? Lol, are you an über-noob or something? Clearex is 4.5% sugar and 95.5% water. More stupid pro-flush bullshit. 

Ok I'll say this again for all the all the simples: Buds don't store nutrients, they store metabolites of nutrients, but no "chemicals". The only way you can get "chemicals" in/on your buds is if you spray them on or feed PGR's like that Bushmaster poison. Plants cannot excrete nutrients, so flushing cannot draw anything out and by starving your plants your actually drawing the so-called chemicals from the leaves to the buds to be used. 

Flushing doesn't work out even slightly when you look into how plants work even slightly. 

Lol again at saying Clearex is good tho, funny stuff.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 19, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Clearex? Lol, are you an über-noob or something? Clearex is 4.5% sugar and 95.5% water. More stupid pro-flush bullshit.
> 
> Ok I'll say this again for all the all the simples: Buds don't store nutrients, they store metabolites of nutrients, but no "chemicals". The only way you can get "chemicals" in/on your buds is if you spray them on or feed PGR's like that Bushmaster poison. Plants cannot excrete nutrients, so flushing cannot draw anything out and by starving your plants your actually drawing the so-called chemicals from the leaves to the buds to be used.
> 
> ...


you make a great argument

but i cant help but wonder since there is no information agianst it or for it why so many people notice a difference, plecebo is your first thought, but thats the human factor, plecebo could go both ways as people taste a difference when there is none, and people dont taste a difference when there is one

i for one would like to see some comprehensive test done by company's that could control the intake of nutrients and what kind they were . . . . idk i just dont buy the there is no info for it or against other than opinion, and i do notice a difference when my plant fade vs green harvest in taste, not saying its a fact just my observation

i mean weed will respond to stress in many ways what if one way is to rid itself of nutrients that would make it grow more and instead try to seed itself and at that point thc production and growth slow and a crawl if not stop all together . . . idk


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

Funnily enough, what you just said explained itself. The reason a green plant may taste slightly different to a yellow plant is the reason the plant is green in the first place...more chlorophyll. This is lost by correct drying and curing tho.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 19, 2011)

so does flushing produce yellow or green plants at harvest

i would assume yellow, but id be an ass if i was wrong

so anyway if flushing does produce yellow or faded plants, mine normally look all sorts of colors, and that means less chlorophyll, and less bad taste that would mean flushing produces better MJ and easier to smoke MJ??????

i have also noticed that my flushed plants retain their smell longer, but again placebo, the plants that smell the most will be taken care of the most . . . . . idk a lot can be explained(proclaimed) by the ying/yang of the human factor

there is a little something called the scientific method where theory's can be proven, in Wa we have very little testing facilities but Co and Ca have nice ones . . .. . .


----------



## zo0t (Dec 19, 2011)

there if a differance da bud will crackle da bud will have an after taste of barbecue and if its in soil its not starving cuz da soil retains da shit etc...


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so does flushing produce yellow or green plants at harvest
> 
> i would assume yellow, but id be an ass if i was wrong
> 
> ...


No it's doesn't mean that, because chlorophyll dissipates from a good dry and cure, so yellow leaves at harvest are purely less efficient energy collectors.


----------



## SCARHOLE (Dec 19, 2011)

I've just did my 2nd comparison of flushed VS nonflushed.
Tasted the same,( an I use MG Nutes).
Yielded better when fed to the chop.


----------



## KushDog (Dec 19, 2011)

just smoked a bud off my friends plant. he also grow raspberry cough . it was 9 weeks in a Ebb & flow . 

Damn that shit burn my thoart. I dont see how you guys injoy that shit. It wasn't the fairest compareisan hydro vs soil chemicals vs organic based. flushed vs un flushed. But the good part is I think that little test change his mind on how to grow... LOL 

I am not trying to arguee with you guys, I was just pointing out this mornings experiment. 

His stuff taste alright once it is cured, but cutting a bud off his plant and one of mine. his taste like crap. his are green and mine are purple,gold,blue,red? I like my plants faded right out at the end (they think they are dying)


----------



## wbd (Dec 19, 2011)

KushDog said:


> just smoked a bud off my friends plant. he also grow raspberry cough . it was 9 weeks in a Ebb & flow .
> 
> Damn that shit burn my thoart. I dont see how you guys injoy that shit. It wasn't the fairest compareisan hydro vs soil chemicals vs organic based. flushed vs un flushed. But the good part is I think that little test change his mind on how to grow... LOL
> 
> ...


It's not even fair for you to be evaluating fresh nugs. They all taste like shit, burn terribly, and are harsh. Bleh.


----------



## wbd (Dec 19, 2011)

SCARHOLE said:


> I've just did my 2nd comparison of flushed VS nonflushed.
> Tasted the same,( an I use MG Nutes).
> Yielded better when fed to the chop.


The taste part I believe, the yield part -- how many plants in your experiment?

Too much variance in nature, if yield was any better on the unflushed bud it can only be chalked up to coincidence.


----------



## KushDog (Dec 19, 2011)

wbd said:


> It's not even fair for you to be evaluating fresh nugs. They all taste like shit, burn terribly, and are harsh. Bleh.


 why can't you compare freash nugs??? LOL why is it not Fair, is it because it dont back up your theory?


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 19, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Ok I'll say this again for all the all the simples: Buds don't store nutrients, they store metabolites of nutrients, but no "chemicals". The only way you can get "chemicals" in/on your buds is if you spray them on or feed PGR's like that Bushmaster poison. Plants cannot excrete nutrients, so flushing cannot draw anything out and by starving your plants your actually drawing the so-called chemicals from the leaves to the buds to be used.





Harrekin said:


> No it's doesn't mean that, because chlorophyll dissipates from a good dry and cure, so yellow leaves at harvest are purely less efficient energy collectors.



This is slightly confusing... So THC isn't a chemical? Chlorophyll isn't a chemical? You realize the entire plant is one big chemical reaction right? I'm curious as to how the chemical compound chlorophyll dissipates from the dry bud when you state that the bud has no chlorophyll to begin with (its a chemical remember) not to mention that you state that chemicals cannot leave the plant. Super confusing.

Nutrient = any element or mineral the plant uses. When you say that buds do not contain elements and minerals what are you saying? Buds are made of glucose only? That would still be elements and minerals... the plant would still have stores of elements and minerals... so yes the plant can store nutrients/chemicals.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> This is slightly confusing... So THC isn't a chemical? Chlorophyll isn't a chemical? You realize the entire plant is one big chemical reaction right? I'm curious as to how the chemical compound chlorophyll dissipates from the dry bud when you state that the bud has no chlorophyll to begin with (its a chemical remember) not to mention that you state that chemicals cannot leave the plant. Super confusing.
> 
> Nutrient = any element or mineral the plant uses. When you say that buds do not contain elements and minerals what are you saying? Buds are made of glucose only? That would still be elements and minerals... the plant would still have stores of elements and minerals... so yes the plant can store nutrients/chemicals.


Are you gonna try argue semantics? When I said chemicals I ment "Chemical Nutrients" as so many have started calling them. 

And I didn't say chemicals can't leave, break down, change in drying. Sure the THC decarboxylates during curing, it's one of the biggest chemical changes we desire. 

What I said was a plant will not excrete nutrients, it doesn't "shit" like we do, so flushing is a pointless exercise. Even if you sure translocation as your reason for flushing, what youre actually doing is telling the plant to remove nutrient metabolites from the leaves (sinks) and move them up TO the flower (drain).


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 19, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Are you gonna try argue semantics? When I said chemicals I ment "Chemical Nutrients" as so many have started calling them.
> 
> And I didn't say chemicals can't leave, break down, change in drying. Sure the THC decarboxylates during curing, it's one of the biggest chemical changes we desire.
> 
> What I said was a plant will not excrete nutrients, it doesn't "shit" like we do, so flushing is a pointless exercise. Even if you sure translocation as your reason for flushing, what youre actually doing is telling the plant to remove nutrient metabolites from the leaves (sinks) and move them up TO the flower (drain).


You miss the point of flushing. You flush so that the plant does not absorb excess (extra, more than necessary) before being chopped. Pretty sure no one actually believes that pouring water through the soil somehow washes mass out of the plant. 

No one is arguing that we need to make plants shit - they are saying that you don't need to load your plants with tons of extra materials that do not get you high or add to flavor or scent. More active material with less inactive material is better than the same amount of active material with additional inactive material - super super simple, same reason hash is more potent and smokes "cleaner" than bud.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 19, 2011)

Your right with the sink/drain but you're again not considering surplus. If a plant is moving minerals from lower leaves to upper buds it doesn't mean your plant is starving but it does mean that the buds require minerals/elements that they do not have in local surplus. If you heavily feed your plant all the way through flower it never needs to translocate minerals/elements (nutrients) as it has a surplus... a local surplus in the calyx. I don't want to smoke the surplus personally - I can taste it and it's not my cup of tea.

And keep in mind that leaves perform photosynthesis which produces glucose - that's about it. If you have stored energy supplies photosynthesis is not necessary; every other function of the plant relies on cellular respiration. In the last two weeks of flower naturally loosing a few lower fan leaves due to translocation followed by cessation isn't going to decrease the amount of energy going towards bud production - if anything this gives the plant the natural cues (remember that in nature there is a seasonal nutrient cycle) to dump all last efforts and energies into final flowering.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 19, 2011)

KushDog said:


> just smoked a bud off my friends plant. he also grow raspberry cough . it was 9 weeks in a Ebb & flow .
> 
> Damn that shit burn my thoart. I dont see how you guys injoy that shit. It wasn't the fairest compareisan hydro vs soil chemicals vs organic based. flushed vs un flushed. But the good part is I think that little test change his mind on how to grow... LOL
> 
> ...



How much more useless can your information get?
Are you trying to compare fresh bud to properly dried & cured bud?
Not even to mention you're trying to distinguish between, flush - unflush and organic - regular in freshly cut bud..

Come on man.
Every kind of weed, no matter how you grow it, tastes harsh and might even taste bad if you smoke it right off the plant.
If you want to do a proper test, you need to dry and cure the bud properly, side by side, in the same conditions.





KushDog said:


> why can't you compare freash nugs??? LOL why is it not Fair, is it because it dont back up your theory?



Are you serious?
What can you possibly add of constructive information to this discussion if that is what you believe?

This is getting ridiculous.
If you have no idea how to grow, harvest, dry or cure please don't respond to this thread, your naive assumptions just drive this thread off topic and it will no doubt induce e-fights.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> You miss the point of flushing. You flush so that the plant does not absorb excess (extra, more than necessary) before being chopped. Pretty sure no one actually believes that pouring water through the soil somehow washes mass out of the plant.
> 
> No one is arguing that we need to make plants shit - they are saying that you don't need to load your plants with tons of extra materials that do not get you high or add to flavor or scent. More active material with less inactive material is better than the same amount of active material with additional inactive material - super super simple, same reason hash is more potent and smokes "cleaner" than bud.



I'm pretty sure you are one of the only pro-flush people who don't believe that flushing can get mass out of the plant.
If you go and look in the many threads there have been about this subject, you will see what kind of stuff people believe.

No that is not what they're saying, it's what you're saying.
Most flushers say it improves taste, odour, look etc.
What you're saying is that you don't need to "waste" nutrients because the plant already has a surplus built up.

How does hash smoke 'cleaner' than bud?
I live in Denmark, where almost all of the smokers smoke hash, a very tiny number smoke homegrown or bud.
Almost everyone I've given bud to have complained of a rougher smoke than what they're used to.
They say it's harder to smoke and it's a lot tougher on the throat on the other hand they say they get more high from the bud, and in a much nicer way.

This is not because I don't flush or my weed isn't properly dried & cured, it's because of the difference between smoking hashish and bud.
My bud is dried for 6-7 days and cured for months on end, dedicated bud smokers tell me it's some of the best they have ever smoked, not just because it's so soft on the throat but also because of the taste and odour.

My underlying point here is that since the plant will move the chemicals up to the drain "sites" because it's not receiving any more nutrients from the roots, how is it in any way different than having the continual surplus in the leaves and harvesting the buds.
What you're saying is that because you flush, the plant doesn't absorb excess nutrients, therefore all nutrients (from the leaves) and used, and therefore you get a cleaner smoke.
How does that in any way make sense, when the only difference in unflushed bud is that there is a surplus of nutrients stored in the leaves (which are not smoked anyway)?
And you still need to get the chlorophyll out of the bud, so you still need to properly dry & cure your weed, even if flushed.
By doing that you get the exact same result with unflushed bud, since the chlorophyll is broken down and dissipates.


My final point:


> More active material with less inactive material is better than the same amount of active material with additional inactive material - super super simple, same reason hash is more potent and smokes "cleaner" than bud.


How is it better, the inactive material you speak off in unflushed buds are stored in the leaves, therefore this material does not affect taste, high, smoke, odour etc.
Yes I agree, hash can be more potent if not cut with anything, but hash does not 'smoke cleaner' than bud.
I've smoked hashish for 10 years, I've only smoked bud for 3-4 years.


----------



## BigBuddahCheese (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Do they yield the same as well?


Actually the buds I continue to feed get bigger for sure. Now I do monitor my ppms and the plants definately drop in ppm usage last few weeks, but I give them what they ask for and don't starve them.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 19, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> I'm pretty sure you are one of the only pro-flush people who don't believe that flushing can get mass out of the plant.
> If you go and look in the many threads there have been about this subject, you will see what kind of stuff people believe.
> 
> No that is not what they're saying, it's what you're saying.
> ...


You missed what I said. The surplus is not in the leaves it is everywhere. If you are feeding your plant heavily you have a surplus in the leaves as well as in the shoots and calyx. If you continue to feed you keep adding to these surpluses - the surpluses in your calyxes (the part you smoke). If you stop feeding the plant uses up the immediate surpluses in the calyx and then translocation begins - but only after the surplus in the calyx is used up. 

Plant A with flush = calyx. Plant B without flush = calyx + surplus. 

This is the same thing I was talking about in reference to hash. Hash is a higher % of active ingredients and lower % of inactive material compared to bud. In this example Plant A has a high % of active material and lower % inactive material compared to plant B. To get the same amount of active material you need less in total of the cleaner material - ie to get 1mg of THC I need 1g of bud or 1.6mg of 60% THC hash oil. I combust less excess material with the hash oil.

And of course you only really need to flush if you use excess nutrients. If you monitor your ppm and they decline all through flower like BigBuddah then that is the equivalent of flushing... However that is not the same as running 1500+ppm throughout the entire cycle up to cutting.

ps - In no way am I saying hash is better than bud...


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> You missed what I said. The surplus is not in the leaves it is everywhere. If you are feeding your plant heavily you have a surplus in the leaves as well as in the shoots and calyx. If you continue to feed you keep adding to these surpluses - the surpluses in your calyxes (the part you smoke). If you stop feeding the plant uses up the immediate surpluses in the calyx and then translocation begins - but only after the surplus in the calyx is used up.
> 
> Plant A with flush = calyx. Plant B without flush = calyx + surplus.
> 
> ...



I know that one smokes calyxes, there is no need for () to explain things.

I still don't see how it affects the taste, odour, harshness that some chemicals and minerals are in the calyxes.
Why would you have surplus in the calyx? Surely the plant uses what is there in the calyx to produce flowers, calyxes are not storage spaces.
If the plant lacks nitrogen it will 'pull' it from the leaves to assist in building calyx formations (if it's flowering of course).

This "immediate" surplus you're talking about in calyxes appear to be used up within a day or two, that's not really a surplus in my mind.

Where exactly do you get this from? If you have any scientific information regarding immediate surplus in calyxes I'd like to see it for myself.

You cannot compare hash to bud in this way.
There are so many variations of hash, some have better active to inactive ratios than bud, others (many) don't.
If you are purely talking about ISO-hash or Butane-hash then please specify so.


For the first time I agree with you, "you only really need to flush if you use excess nutrients".
I completely agree.

Flushing is an error correcting measure. Either if you have salt buildup or if you have any problems with your solute ratio.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a decline in ppm through flowering is the same as flushing.
That is not what new growers think, that might be your thinking, but not the general consensus.


----------



## bigv1976 (Dec 19, 2011)

Ive said it before and I will say it again. ALL the best growers in the world flush and because of that so do I.


----------



## wbd (Dec 19, 2011)

KushDog said:


> why can't you compare freash nugs??? LOL why is it not Fair, is it because it dont back up your theory?


Back up *my* theory?

The only theory I have is called WHO GIVES A SHIT? I've flushed, not flushed, it makes no difference in the end so I choose not to. Simpler is better. That's me though, you do what you want.

But if you're smoking fresh nugs, why even participate in a discussion that involves improving the final product? Fresh nugs are disgusting, flushed or not. If you think otherwise, you've never tasted good pot. I mean, why not flush at 4 weeks and then quick dry some buds in the microwave and compare those? An equally pointless comparison...


----------



## SimonD (Dec 19, 2011)

bigv1976 said:


> ALL the best growers in the world flush...


How do you know?

Simon


----------



## cannawizard (Dec 19, 2011)

#welcome.to.Fail.Train...


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 19, 2011)

rocknratm said:


> isnt denounce a negative descriptive word?
> 
> anyway if you read my babbling, I support that it is necessary in some cases. Mine, not so much, I try not to use too much nutes, nothing on the very synthetic side (FF trio, I think its close enough to organic, not completely anyways...).
> But read what I posted. There are applications in which flushing will help. But its not always needed. Depends on the situation


just getting back to check this.... fucking edit removed denounce in his post.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 19, 2011)

bigv1976 said:


> Ive said it before and I will say it again. ALL the best growers in the world flush and because of that so do I.


wow your friends with all of them? and are there during harvest? that's pretty tight. Like I've noted before If I was entering a bud into a competition and they asked if it was flushed I would just say it was that way people who don't know automatically think it's shit because someone else told them flushed is better.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Dec 19, 2011)

anyone know of "The Wine Experiment" ? quite a famous psychological study. same wine in two bottles, blind taste test. "one" wine is very expensive and luxurious and the other is pigs swill. people will swear to you there's a difference, swear on their kids lives and even pass a lie detector, there is a genuine belief in the difference.

same thing applies here. I was really wary smoking the first crop, read up on flushing waaay back then and decided against it for many of the reasons in the first post on this thread *rep* Point is i was expecting to have fucked up and was actively expecting an inferior product, but got some of the sweetest tasting stuff i've ever had, and i've been all over. So even if you did take cuttings off the same mother plant and flush one and not the other, then cure them identically, unless you dont know which one your smoking until after you've smoked it, only then is it going to be a fair test.

i'd wager chemmed bud is a result of high overfeeding in the last weeks or mix match nutes overdosing on something. gotta wonder how much the flushing myth is worth financially to the likes of royal flush etc pure propaganda ...


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

LaudanumRx said:


> Doesn't really sound like you want to help people cultivate cannabis. Sort of just sounds like you want to be a dick and play out on the internet the power scenarios you attempt but fail at in real life. Also funny that you would talk about insults beginning to roll but maybe you should have mentioned that when you called me a noob.
> 
> Regardless, to all the people out there wondering whether or not to flush, here is your answer: yes, flush, it's common sense. I would guess this dude's chronic to be worthy of flushed down the toilet.
> 
> No more point discussing this unless it's to give me a high five.


Lol, you stated Clearex is good... That's you're credibility shot right there. The only thing Clearex is good for is flushing out your wallet. Again, 4.5% sugar and 95.5% water. Nice flushing agent


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 19, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> Why would you have surplus in the calyx? Surely the plant uses what is there in the calyx to produce flowers, calyxes are not storage spaces.
> If the plant lacks nitrogen it will 'pull' it from the leaves to assist in building calyx formations (if it's flowering of course).
> 
> This "immediate" surplus you're talking about in calyxes appear to be used up within a day or two, that's not really a surplus in my mind.
> ...


There is plenty of science to support the claim that plants store surpluses in their fruiting bodies. One of the primary roles of a fruiting body is the storage of surplus - this is generally accepted by the entire science community and you can find this information in most every plant biology textbook. Why would a marijuana plant store surplus in it's leaves? It drops it's leaves... All excess goes to the fruit of the plant; the calyx is the fruiting body of the plant.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> There is plenty of science to support the claim that plants store surpluses in their fruiting bodies. One of the primary roles of a fruiting body is the storage of surplus - this is generally accepted by the entire science community and you can find this information in most every plant biology textbook. Why would a marijuana plant store surplus in it's leaves? It drops it's leaves... All excess goes to the fruit of the plant; the calyx is the fruiting body of the plant.


You realise it drops the leaves cos it translocates the nutes in the leaves to the buds? If buds "stored nutes" the way you describe it wouldn't need to translocate from elsewhere thus again making flushing an exercise in futility. 

You must really love this myth to totally bury your head in the sand the way you have man.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 19, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> You realise it drops the leaves cos it translocates the nutes in the leaves to the buds? If buds "stored nutes" the way you describe it wouldn't need to translocate from elsewhere thus again making flushing an exercise in futility.
> 
> You must really love this myth to totally bury your head in the sand the way you have man.


 I don't care if people flush. I don't flush, I grow with organic amendments and it would serve me no purpose as none of them are water soluble. I'm trying to provide legitimate science as to what is happening with the plant. If you keep feeding late into flower the surplus continues to increase - this is common scientific knowledge in the agricultural industry. 

If you stop/slow the feed the plant burns through some of its own surplus - again common science. 

The fruiting body is where this surplus is stored in marijuana - common scientific knowledge in the ag industry (referring to the type of plant not specifically MJ - although it does of course apply).


----------



## KushisSweet (Dec 19, 2011)

This thread is as stupid as this next statement my friend just said after I asked him, "To flush or not to flush" holding a nug in the air.

"Why would you flush the weed down the toilet?"

That will be all folks. who cares anyway its YOUR bud, YOU get to choose how YOU want YOUR bud to be.. that's like me getting mad at a dealer for him not selling me flushed weed!!!  he just lost 1 customer!


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> There is plenty of science to support the claim that plants store surpluses in their fruiting bodies. One of the primary roles of a fruiting body is the storage of surplus - this is generally accepted by the entire science community and you can find this information in most every plant biology textbook. Why would a marijuana plant store surplus in it's leaves? It drops it's leaves... All excess goes to the fruit of the plant; the calyx is the fruiting body of the plant.



Again I say, show me the evidence you are speaking of.
I have had biology A level and I have not read what you describe.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 19, 2011)

@Gastanker:

I just found some nutrient storage information from a scientific book called: Plant nutrition - from genetic engineering to field practice.






They don't mention anything about fruiting bodies being storage places for excess minerals.
In fact they only mention the: Stem, Leaf and Roots as storage 'units'.

The stem and the leaves are clearly the main storage areas for excess nutrients.

Not only that, but the science clearly suggest that yield is proportional to the amount of nutrients given and a deficiency (which flushing causes) will reduce yield.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Huge difference between perennials and annuals when it comes to storage - how would storing energy in the roots or leaves help a marijuana plant late in flower when it is about to die... and no one is arguing that you should invoke deficiencies. If you have a healthy plant going into the last two weeks of flower you will see no deficiencies when you cut off feeding. If you see deficiencies it is because you had an unhealthy plant to begin with - it has nothing to do with cutting down the nutes. You can flush and still run your plants at "Critical supply".
> 
> Keep in mind that chart doesn't speak of the difference in plant material...
> 
> Dude... If you've taken biology and you don't know that a fruit is a storage organ I don't know what to tell you... I can't imagine how one more text book is going to really change your mind.


Dude just back down, the guy pwn'd you with textbook horticulture and you still can't see the foolishness of your argument.

And just to correct you, fruits and seeds are very minor storage places but the primary things they store are starches and proteins.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> When did I get pwn'd? Why are you trying to pwn me? That chart that doesn't correlate to anything we are talking about; what does it have to do with anything we are talking about?
> 
> Seeds and fruits are the end all be all of annual plants - nothing else matters, they are going to die.


Fruits are purely a method of dispersal for seeds, and seeds only contain the things it needs to grow roots of its own, that is a small supply of starches and proteins. What sort of education have you in this outta interest?


----------



## purklize (Dec 19, 2011)

I feel like we're living in the "Green Scare" by having to say we flush even when it's been proven to be bullshit... "I'm not a communist!"


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 19, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> BS in Ecology and an AS in Natural Resources. I sample soil and monitor agricultural insect traps.
> 
> But why does that matter? The info is the info. I don't care if you're a garbage man, if you have better info it's better info.
> 
> ...


Relevence?


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 19, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Relevence?


This should be really obvious... Your chart was referencing a perennial grass. I'm demonstrating the differences between annuals and perennials (your chart has no bearing on our conversation).


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> This should be really obvious... Your chart was referencing a perennial grass. I'm demonstrating the differences between annuals and perennials (your chart has no bearing on our conversation).


Sorry I'm full of freshly made hash, I'll probably continue another time when I actually care again 

Just I said it once and I'll say it one last time, don't forget to wipe before you flush and then make sure to wash your hands after.


----------



## suTraGrow (Dec 20, 2011)

I suggest some of you growing in hydro do a side by side test. You will see for your self the bud thats been flush not only burn more evenly, but the ash is ALWAYS white. Flushed bud tends to crack and crackle and just about always turn into a black ash. 
Don't believe me do a test you'll see for your self.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 20, 2011)

cowell said:


> All you fuckers out here talking about "don't flush your plants" are ALL new growers.. WTF do you know about it? Including the OP... 4 months ago you didn't know about how to properly nute in flowering... something change and make you super smart??? I've been growing for 3 years. It makes a difference. All your posts are "don't flush".. you don't even know what you're talking about...LMAO.
> https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/459786-introducing-nitrogen-flowering.html
> 
> go check the posts of people who are backing you.. all in their first grow and don't know any better.
> ...



I never claimed to be an expert. And yes your right I've only had like 5 harvests. But I've been gardening for most my life which this may be surprising but its pretty similar to growing other plants. I've cured 6times the last three were done properly thanks to Simon d (thanks brother) and how does me adding Nitrogen midflower to a plant showing signs of defficiency mean I don't know what I'm doing? Regardless what I do know is the times I cured properly I was t able to notice a difference.my friends who have been growing longer than me also have done this expirement with similar results. But we grow in soil and that's all I know. I don't know about hydro which is why i have never said anything about flushing in hydro. but since your an expert with 3yrs under your belt maybe you could share your results from doIng an experiment from not flushing and flushing for the rest of the people? 
Thanks

Appreciate the input on flushing.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Huge difference between perennials and annuals when it comes to storage - how would storing energy in the roots or leaves help a marijuana plant late in flower when it is about to die... and no one is arguing that you should invoke deficiencies. If you have a healthy plant going into the last two weeks of flower you will see no deficiencies when you cut off feeding. If you see deficiencies it is because you had an unhealthy plant to begin with - it has nothing to do with cutting down the nutes. You can flush and still run your plants at "Critical supply".
> 
> Keep in mind that chart doesn't speak of the difference in plant material...
> 
> Dude... If you've taken biology and you don't know that a fruit is a storage organ I don't know what to tell you... I can't imagine how one more text book is going to really change your mind.



First of all, the roll eyes is somewhat offensive when I'm trying to have a grown up discussion with you about this, I don't you know why you have to resort to that.

Secondly, I know there are differences between annual and perennial plants.
How exactly do you know that the rye in that chart was not annual? Where exactly does it specificy if it was _Lolium Multiflorum_ or _Lolium Perenne_?

How can you say that if I don't know that a fruit is a storage organ then you don't know what to tell me?
What kind of flawed argument is that?

I asked you to show me the evidence, you have showed me none.
You say it's in every biology textbook, I have looked through the ones I own, haven't found a thing.
I've searched the web, all I found on nutrient storage was the chart I linked to you and yet that you shoot down without even know what you are talking about. On top of that you are acting offensive, because you have no idea what you're talking about or because you have dug yourself in a hole, I don't know.

And mellokitty, why do you always seem to like other peoples posts when they posts information that has no basis in fact?
Do you do this just to piss people off, or is it like Gastanker, your flawed humor acting out?
I think it's great you have each others back no matter how foolish your friend sounds, but it reflects very poorly on you. Especially when all you can do is like posts, you can't bring one damn piece of factual information into the discussion. Well done.
Either way, it's downright offensive and I can't believe this is the way you people try to prove a point.​


----------



## 5000joints (Dec 20, 2011)

I flush with straight tap water for 2-3 weeks before harvesting. I dont ph balance it or nothing. I just want to get the salts out of the soil. I dont care about nutrients out of the soil because I will never get it all out since I grow mostly organic. I use ice cold water the last week and keep them in the dark for 5 days. The day before harvest, I flush 1 more time then harvest in the morning. This will shock the root system and force the plant to protect itself by forcing out trichomes as fast and as thick as possible. I love this trick and have the best buds. Look at my pics in my journal. The close-ups tell the story. This also helps stubborn, cloudy trichs to amber up.Ive tried not flushing plants. My bud burns like charcoal and the ash is black. Its harsh and burns hot. It goes out with every hit. It sucks.When I flush, my weed is smooth. It tastes like it should. The ash is white. It stays lit. It doesnt burn hot. I wont smoke weed thats not flushed. I cured the buds perfectly in glass jars for 3 months. Flushed and unflushed. I dont think another 3 months would have made a difference with the unflushed bud. Same strain. same growing technique. Same flush. Same cure. FLUSHING WINS HANDS DOWN. For me that is. Hey! If someone doesnt like to flush then all power to them. If there strains come out just as good as anyone elses, great. A good cure goes along way with some strains. Not flushing just isnt for me and mine. Just because I have a different way then someone else doesnt mean its better or worse. Or right or wrong. To each his own. However you like to utilize your growing technique do it the best you know how. 
These pics are BC Mango. Just before placing in a week of darkness. When they came out, There were 20% amber trichs.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

cowell said:


> All you fuckers out here talking about "don't flush your plants" are ALL new growers.. WTF do you know about it? Including the OP... 4 months ago you didn't know about how to properly nute in flowering... something change and make you super smart??? I've been growing for 3 years. It makes a difference. All your posts are "don't flush".. you don't even know what you're talking about...LMAO.
> https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/459786-introducing-nitrogen-flowering.html
> 
> go check the posts of people who are backing you.. all in their first grow and don't know any better.
> ...



What kind of flawed argument is that?
If people say, don't flush, they are new growers?

I've been growing for 4 years, thats more than you, who are you to stipulate that I know nothing about growing when you have no clue who I am.
I have a very hard time taking people who write like you write seriously, all I can think about is that with a grammar like yours you must either be very young or be extremely angry. 
Either way, the crux of your point is lost within a haze of capped words and logical fallacies.


----------



## KushDog (Dec 20, 2011)

Flushing your Grow meidiem is like flushing a tolet, when you flush it gets rid of all the shit you no longer need.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> First of all, the roll eyes is somewhat offensive when I'm trying to have a grown up discussion with you about this, I don't you know why you have to resort to that.
> 
> Secondly, I know there are differences between annual and perennial plants.
> How exactly do you know that the rye in that chart was not annual? Where exactly does it specificy if it was _Lolium Multiflorum_ or _Lolium Perenne_?
> ...


I thought I was rolling my eyes at herrequin who is trying to personally attack people while making up differing information (differs with his other information). I"m sorry for rolling my eyes at you. 

I assume that chart to be talking about perennial rye grass as I am always seeing experiments conducted on perennial rye grass - they choose it for the fact that it is perennial. Here in the US there is a big environmental problem concerning invasive annual grasses replacing the native perennial grasses... I explained this. But there - even if that is discussing annual rye grass, it still has nothing to do with what we are talking about... 

In your eyes, biologically what is the purpose of a plants life? What is the purpose of fruits/seeds? If a plants purpose is not to create more plants by making fruit/seed, and fruits/seeds are not storage units for new plants, then I would really like to learn their purpose.

Why are fruits/grains/nuts so high in calories compared to the other parts of the plant?

First thing my book said about seeds/fruits is that they store energy. What type of text were you looking in? If you can't break down to just admit that fruits/seeds are storage units then how will we ever have a legitimate conversation about the more complex aspects? This is super super basic plant biology.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> I thought I was rolling my eyes at herrequin who is trying to personally attack people while making up differing information (differs with his other information). I"m sorry for rolling my eyes at you.
> 
> I assume that chart to be talking about perennial rye grass as I am always seeing experiments conducted on perennial rye grass - they choose it for the fact that it is perennial. Here in the US there is a big environmental problem concerning invasive annual grasses replacing the native perennial grasses... I explained this. But there - even if that is discussing annual rye grass, it still has nothing to do with what we are talking about...



Alright, no worries.

I still don't see how you can be certain (since you are assuming) that it is perennial, even though perennial might be the most researched of the two.

Why is nutrient storage of rye grass not applicable to what we're discussing?
Doesn't rye grass use the same basic plant biology to grow and produce as Cannabis does?
The way nutrients like nitrogen are used, broken down, moved etc. is the same for every plant.
Xylem and Plhoem are vital in both cases, and they behave alike across species and genus.




Gastanker said:


> In your eyes, biologically what is the purpose of a plants life? What is the purpose of fruits/seeds? If a plants purpose is not to create more plants by making fruit/seed, and fruits/seeds are not storage units for new plants, then I would really like to learn their purpose.



I agree with what you say here, what I don't agree with is that the fruiting bodies are storages for nutrients as such.
From what I can read about this subject, the stem, leaves and roots of plants are the main storage 'areas'.

The picture you took doesn't specify.
I get that seeds and fruits are filled with stored foods, but exactly what are they talking about?
Are they talking about stored minerals, if so, which?

It's a delicate subject, and I might be wrong, but I'm trying to get to the truth.
I only believe what is fact regarding scientific subjects, I want proof for it.

And I cannot say that seeing a textbook cut out that says:



> Seeds and fruits are filled with stored foods intended to help the embryo germinate and grow or to attract and animal to eat the fruit etc. etc.


Is enough proof.




> Why are fruits/grains/nuts so high in calories compared to the other parts of the plant?


I really don't think that is relevant to this discussion.
Yes fruits grains and nuts are high in calories and many other substances compared to other parts of the plant.
But we are talking about _nutrient storage_. 
You cannot compare the process of osmosis, diffusion and nutrient storage, usage etc. to how many calories a fruit, grain or nut might have.

I mean, all the nutrients are either broken down, and / or transformed into other substances.

I have grown a lot of plants, including strawberries.
I've fed strawberries with the same nutrients I use for Cannabis.
I have tried different ppms and I have observed that not only do the strawberries taste better with an abundance of nutrients, they also grow larger 
I realize a strawberry is not the same as Cannabis, but for the sake of your argument that fruits are high in calories, that can be said of any fruiting body.
And it doesn't follow that because a fruit is high in calories, it's high in nutrients like NPK or any other.




> First thing my book said about seeds/fruits is that they store energy. What type of text were you looking in? If you can't break down to just admit that fruits/seeds are storage units then how will we ever have a legitimate conversation about the more complex aspects? This is super super basic plant biology.


Yes I know that fruits are stored with foods, but still it doesn't specify which foods we are talking about.
It could be the proteins and starches? Aren't they "food" as well.
I don't have any problem understanding 'super super basic plant biology' nor advanced biology.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> How can you say that if I don't know that a fruit is a storage organ then you don't know what to tell me?
> What kind of flawed argument is that?
> 
> I asked you to show me the evidence, you have showed me none.
> You say it's in every biology textbook, I have looked through the ones I own, haven't found a thing.​





k0ijn said:


> Again I say, show me the evidence you are speaking of.
> I have had biology A level and I have not read what you describe.





k0ijn said:


> Yes I know that fruits are stored with foods


You adamantly said that fruiting bodies are not storage areas and made me go to the absurd measure of taking a picture of a biology book to show you therwise just to have you instantly change your mind. This is futile. 
.


k0ijn said:


> Yes fruits grains and nuts are high in calories and many other substances compared to other parts of the plant.
> But we are talking about _nutrient storage_.


Plants do not store any of the nutrients they uptake as the same mineral they up took. If a plant takes in potassium nitrate KNO3 it doesn't store KNO3 in one of its leaves. The KNO3 is immediately broken down into it's smaller parts and these elements and smaller compounds are used to create something - if not its at least converted to simple inorganic ions.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

You are right, this chart is great - Unfortunately fruiting bodies are not counted due to this experiment taking place during the vegetative state.

Here is one set. The first column of numbers are yield of total plant and the second is the amount of P in the leaves.





So at critical nutrient supply you can yield 95% of the maximum. Running at 95% the plant has 6 P. If you run at abundant - the highest level possible without harming the plant (what most MJ farmers run at) you end up with 25 P in the leaves. You gain 5% yield but you end up 18 extra P. The juiced up plant has over 400% more P than the regular plant.







Yummy 16x the amount of N. Gotta love that really really dark over N fed bud.

Would bud with 3x the amount of sulfur smoke the same as bud with 1/3 the amount of sulfur? I hope you don't smoke the stem of chemmed up bud because according to the chart it has 10x the amount of sulfur - gross!







Do you have a link to this entire study? I would love to read it.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

Found the study and it actually applies more than I gave you credit for. The study is regarding the overuse of fertilizer on row crops in the UK. 






I guess these guys have heard of these elusive nutrient stores as well:













According to the chart the amount of excess skyrockets when the plants are fed an overabundance. And these stores occur in all organs...







Oh, and I guess according to them stems don't store much - 







But unfortunately we still don't have a solid conclusion. 







From this experiment we have gathered that excess nutrients in the soil does lead to excess nutrients in all organs of the plant and that during the vegetative growth cycle rye grass benefits from fertilizer. Great resource. Thank you.


----------



## CEEJR (Dec 20, 2011)

If the ash is white you did it right flush or no flush.


----------



## thechemist310 (Dec 20, 2011)

Let's look on the bright side! With the exception of a couple ghetto kids, all these arguments have been made in proper English and decent grammar! That's a lot to say about an innerweb forum!


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 20, 2011)

haha totally agree, Im actually learning something from this one and people are atleast staying on track and keeping the inner internet thug down. of course there's always a few bad eggs, but we love them all the same lol


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> haha totally agree, Im actually learning something from this one and people are atleast staying on track and keeping the inner internet thug down. of course there's always a few bad eggs, but we love them all the same lol


I think we all are. My fiancee was wondering what the hell I was doing breaking out my old text books on the weekend.  Fun when people make you think versus just slinging mud (I apologize if I've thrown mud in this thread).

Did you read these? 

*




**






*Vegetative state of rye grass doesn't help us much but I think we can all safely stop arguing about the feasibility of excess nutrient stores.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 20, 2011)

Yea minus the personal attacks Im enjoying it, lol my gf has been wondering the same. SHe's like your never on this much, Im just intrigued with all of the information for once instead of blabel blabel. 

Honestly if you feed your plant how it's suppose too be fed your gonna have bomb nug regardless...


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> Yea minus the personal attacks Im enjoying it, lol my gf has been wondering the same. SHe's like your never on this much, Im just intrigued with all of the information for once instead of blabel blabel.
> 
> *Honestly if you feed your plant how it's suppose too be fed your gonna have bomb nug regardless...*


Couldn't agree more. Slightly blown away at how many people over feed their plants though... Sometimes this forum reminds me of the exploding Chinese watermelons.

"BEIJING -- Watermelons have been bursting by the score in eastern China after farmers gave them overdoses of growth chemicals during wet weather, creating what state media called fields of "land mines." About 20 farmers around Danyang city in Jiangsu province were affected, losing up to 115 acres (45 hectares) of melon, China Central Television said in an investigative report."

[video=youtube;avqpBlm-DeU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avqpBlm-DeU[/video]


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 20, 2011)

hahah that's awesome!


----------



## SlimJim503 (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Couldn't agree more. Slightly blown away at how many people over feed their plants though... Sometimes this forum reminds me of the exploding Chinese watermelons.
> 
> "BEIJING -- Watermelons have been bursting by the score in eastern China after farmers gave them overdoses of growth chemicals during wet weather, creating what state media called fields of "land mines." About 20 farmers around Danyang city in Jiangsu province were affected, losing up to 115 acres (45 hectares) of melon, China Central Television said in an investigative report."
> 
> [video=youtube;avqpBlm-DeU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avqpBlm-DeU[/video]


Yeah but the exploding watermelons have nothing to do with flushing it had to do with the seeds and conditions in the region just saying


----------



## thechemist310 (Dec 20, 2011)

SlimJim503 said:


> Yeah but the exploding watermelons have nothing to do with flushing it had to do with the seeds and conditions in the region just saying


Yeah, let's not have my comment make everyone go soft!!!!!

So after spending 3 days reading this thread I am still utterly confused on what I should do on my first crop. I am half way through week 8 of flower. I have been feeding the FF trio since the very start. I have followed their feeding schedule to the T. I fed for the last time two days ago. 

I plan to do a combination of the "flush" technique and the "feed until the end" technique. I will be giving my plants tap water only. Not in any exuberant amounts. Just the normal 1 gallon I give them currently every other day. 

It will save nutes and also allow the plant to use up the nutes that I'm positive have been building in the soil over time.


----------



## KushDog (Dec 20, 2011)

thechemist310 said:


> Yeah, let's not have my comment make everyone go soft!!!!!
> 
> So after spending 3 days reading this thread I am still utterly confused on what I should do on my first crop. I am half way through week 8 of flower. I have been feeding the FF trio since the very start. I have followed their feeding schedule to the T. I fed for the last time two days ago.
> 
> ...


 if you dont want chemical taste, flush, if you dont mind the taste in your buds than feed till the end


----------



## dannyboy602 (Dec 20, 2011)

i put a little extra plutonium in my buds near the end. it's the bomb.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

*&#8203;**

How can you say that if I don't know that a fruit is a storage organ then you don't know what to tell me?
What kind of flawed argument is that?

I asked you to show me the evidence, you have showed me none.
You say it's in every biology textbook, I have looked through the ones I own, haven't found a thing.​​​
*What I wrote there was not a statement of fruits not being storage organs.
What I ment was that you what you said "if you don't know fruits are storages organs then I don't know what to tell you" is a flawed argument.
Not the actual statement about fruits being storage organs or not. I don't disagree with "fruiting bodies are storage organs". They are storage organs in many ways, but wether they store substances in surplus and that surplus affects taste, harshness for weed is not conclusive in my honest opinion.
What I'm disputing is that the fruiting bodies store substances which by flushing can be 'used up' and thereby improve taste / harshness.



Gastanker said:


> You adamantly said that fruiting bodies are not storage areas and made me go to the absurd measure of taking a picture of a biology book to show you therwise just to have you instantly change your mind. This is futile.


No, this is not what I ment.
You are overanalyzing what I wrote, I thought I had made it clear. Now however it should be clear (referring to what I wrote above).





Gastanker said:


> Plants do not store any of the nutrients they uptake as the same mineral they up took. If a plant takes in potassium nitrate KNO3 it doesn't store KNO3 in one of its leaves. The KNO3 is immediately broken down into it's smaller parts and these elements and smaller compounds are used to create something - if not its at least converted to simple inorganic ions.


This is a part of my point how you cannot just say that because fruits contain calories, it proves that Cannabis fruiting bodies store substances which can be 'used up' by flushing and thereby improve taste / harshness.
That, in my mind, is a logical fallacy.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

KushDog said:


> if you dont want chemical taste, flush, if you dont mind the taste in your buds than feed till the end


Have you even harvested your first crop yet? I distinctly remember earlier in the thread it being mentioned you hadn't...so what exactly do you know? Have you tried a side by side of flushed and unflushed yourself personally? If not, then just be quiet and stop spouting myth like its absolute fact.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> *&#8203;*
> This is a part of my point how you cannot just say that because fruits contain calories, it proves that Cannabis fruiting bodies store substances which can be 'used up' by flushing and thereby improve taste / harshness.
> That, in my mind, is a logical fallacy.


My initial argument was that all portions of the plant contain surplus. You argued against this. I then mentioned that fruiting bodies in particular were storage units. You refuted this as well...and then changed your mind later when presented with evidence otherwise. 

*









*

Did you miss this? It is the article you brought up and fairly clearly states that all portions of the plant can contain surplus when you over feed and according to the chart it if often in magnitudes of 10x

Flushing = not over feeding so between flush and over feeding the flushed material would have less surplus ion accumulation - if you follow the logic of your own evidence.

Does A + extra ions = A? No... Is it possible that A + extra tastes different than just A? Yes...

Is it possible to taste combusting sulfur and other elements? Yes... What is the fallacy?


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> You are right, this chart is great - Unfortunately fruiting bodies are not counted due to this experiment taking place during the vegetative state.
> 
> Here is one set. The first column of numbers are yield of total plant and the second is the amount of P in the leaves.
> 
> ...


Yes I wondered about that myself, but I think what most experienced growers do, is find a balanced PPM level, and always do experiments to get the proper levels which don't harm your plants. At least that is what I do myself, and I'm pretty sure I don't have those levels, I think if I did I would be able to see it on my crop 
I do agree that the extra 5% gained is not worth the extra nutrients really, unless it's very important for people to gain 100% productivity.

The question there really is how much does flushing affect the plant, how many nutrients are moved around and whereto, if moved at all?
I'd like to see what the productivity % falls to when the flushing is induced, I wonder how low it goes, since it's more than a deficiency, it's a critical deficiency (depends if one flushes with pure RO water or a higher ppm of course).




Gastanker said:


> Yummy 16x the amount of N. Gotta love that really really dark over N fed bud.
> 
> Would bud with 3x the amount of sulfur smoke the same as bud with 1/3 the amount of sulfur? I hope you don't smoke the stem of chemmed up bud because according to the chart it has 10x the amount of sulfur - gross!
> 
> ...



I would never smoke the stem hehe, nor the leaves, although I do make bubble hash from the leaves.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 20, 2011)

thechemist310 said:


> Yeah, let's not have my comment make everyone go soft!!!!!
> 
> So after spending 3 days reading this thread I am still utterly confused on what I should do on my first crop. I am half way through week 8 of flower. I have been feeding the FF trio since the very start. I have followed their feeding schedule to the T. I fed for the last time two days ago.
> 
> ...


yea no matter what anyone says the best way to find out what to do is try both and see what happens. Who knows you may notice a difference but most likely you won't. Just make sure you cure properly as this makes the difference. 

Kushdog really? I mean really buddy, still pushin that lol.


----------



## donutpunched (Dec 20, 2011)

I dont flush at all... I used to but found no difference at all. My latest crop was super og and people think that shit was flushed and cured.. It was dried one week....


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> Yes I wondered about that myself, but I think what most experienced growers do, is find a balanced PPM level, and always do experiments to get the proper levels which don't harm your plants. At least that is what I do myself, and I'm pretty sure I don't have those levels, I think if I did I would be able to see it on my crop
> I do agree that the extra 5% gained is not worth the extra nutrients really, unless it's very important for people to gain 100% productivity.
> 
> The question there really is how much does flushing affect the plant, how many nutrients are moved around and whereto, if moved at all?
> ...


All bud contains stems and leaf material though - well cept for when you get so stoned you pick it apart with tweezers - each calyx is held together by stem material. Again flushing to the point of causing a deficiency is bad - I don't think anyone would argue that. Flushing without causing a deficiency just means you are removing some of the surplus nutrients in the soil - there's no way you are going to flush all of the nutrients out of soil if you have a decent soil with a decent CEC


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Found the study and it actually applies more than I gave you credit for. The study is regarding the overuse of fertilizer on row crops in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm glad you find it helpful after all 

They do say that "growth requirements are generally achieved before high concentrations are attained".
Which is an important point.
And remember, this is about an abundance of nutrients fed, I don't think most Cannabis growers feed their crops with nutrients in abundance.
I for one keep a balanced level around the critical level I'd say, sometimes I get small deficiencies, other times I hit it right on the nail, I hardly ever see overfeeding. My PPM meter helps me a lot though 




Gastanker said:


> According to the chart the amount of excess skyrockets when the plants are fed an overabundance. And these stores occur in all organs...


Again you have to remember that this discussion is not about an abundance of nutrients versus a normal level, but a normal level (non flushers) vs. deficiency (flushers) 

I agree that overfeeding is bad however.




Gastanker said:


> Oh, and I guess according to them stems don't store much -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you read the chart I posted, stems are clearly high in substances, compared to leaves and roots.
I did not say everything was kept in the stem, but I just read the chart and concluded that stems must contain a lot of substances if the chart is scientifically factual (which I believe it is).

Yes I agree, it's a very good read


----------



## cues (Dec 20, 2011)

The thing about 'Scientifically proven facts' from people researching PhD's etc is that most of them are resourced from the internet. As long as a link is provided for the bibliography, it all counts.
I know what you're saying though. Being in full-time education gives you access to information we can't get to. I only wish that I had taken full advantage of it while I had the chance.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> My initial argument was that all portions of the plant contain surplus. You argued against this. I then mentioned that fruiting bodies in particular were storage units. You refuted this as well...and then changed your mind later when presented with evidence otherwise.
> 
> *
> 
> ...


I'm very sure I didn't contradict myself, if I did, please quote me so I can see where I went wrong.

What I've said from the beginning is that I don't believe in the surplus nutrients / substances theory regarding normally PPM'ed weed contra flushed weed.
That is the crux of my point and that is what I've tried to point out all the way through the discussion.


You are not taking into account that you are talking about abundance of nutrients versus flushed.
The discussion about abundance versus flushed is not relevant, since none of us who don't flush intently overfeed our crop.
That is a fairly safe assumption I'd say. I certainly haven't see Harrekin or SirLance overfeed.
I myself don't overfeed my crop either, I have regular PPMs as I've explained.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> All bud contains stems and leaf material though - well cept for when you get so stoned you pick it apart with tweezers - each calyx is held together by stem material. Again flushing to the point of causing a deficiency is bad - I don't think anyone would argue that. Flushing without causing a deficiency just means you are removing some of the surplus nutrients in the soil - there's no way you are going to flush all of the nutrients out of soil if you have a decent soil with a decent CEC


Yes I agree, basic Cannabis biology.
I pick out the stems however, I can pick them out of my grinder after I've grinded some bud up, it's very easy to pick them out in the mix, at least for me it is.
I never smoke leaves or stems.

What happens for most flushers who flush 2 weeks of RO water is surely deficiency, when we have already learned earlier in this thread that deficiency can occur with few days after feeding stops.
And from the study I posted, where they specified that "growth requirements are generally achieved before high concentrations are attained" (nutrients, substances) we can also see that even in abundance, plants have ways of reaching requirements for growth before levels of concentrations get (too) high.
I want to specify that I agree that abundance of nutrients is not healthy for plants, and it has never been.
But neither is deficiency, and flushing surely causes deficiency, in the most critical part of growth, late flowering.

And still I don't see any scientific information regarding how the surplus of substances in plants is stored, where it is stored and what it is stored as (ions? broken up minerals?).
And most importantly, if this amount of stored nutrients in a normally PPM'ed crop versus a flushed crop, really can affect taste, harshness etc.
Which I firmly believe is controlled by proper drying & curing (unless you overfeed, which is not the point of our discussion).


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> I'm very sure I didn't contradict myself, if I did, please quote me so I can see where I went wrong.
> 
> What I've said from the beginning is that I don't believe in the surplus nutrients / substances theory regarding normally PPM'ed weed contra flushed weed.
> That is the crux of my point and that is what I've tried to point out all the way through the discussion.
> ...


I think we agree on everything other than what flushing is. 
Most growers I know and on this forum shoot for maximum growth - they push 1200ppm with some even reaching as high as 3000ppm. If you maintain 1200ppm through flower you are overfeeding - at least compared to every other industry. 

Hydro has no substrate to retain nutrients so lowering ppm late in flower is in my mind flushing - you are immediately not exposing your plants to excess.

In soil if you feed 1200 ppm every other feed your soil will over time accumulate nutrients - simply lowering ppm in the last two weeks often doesn't decrease this maximum level of nutrient feed and your plant will still uptake excess. If you pass just a bit of water through the soil and can wash some of this buildup out of the soil so that your plants are not receiving high levels of accumulated nutrients late into flower. 

If you run your plants the entire time at 95% and you have no build up and your plants are not receiving more nutrients than necessary then there is no reason for a flush - it's just hard to run a plant in soil at 100% all the way up to the last two weeks of flower and not run 100% the last two weeks as well without flushing.

I know many many growers that aim for the 100% and over feed, many fewer that aim for the 95% growth and properly fed plants. How many cases of nute burn have you seen on this site? If they stop right before nute burn they are likely running higher than the abundance level.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Hell no I don't overfeed either, I just make sure there's no deficiencies and try keep on top of the plants requirements. Balance is key, more nutes don't mean more bud...but starving a plant for a week to two weeks when it's ripening up is a definate way to reduce yield. 

Anyone wanna tell me how you flush organic soil? Organics are the same ions and metsbolites as synthetics once uptaken by the plant, why does it not require flushing?


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Hell no I don't overfeed either, I just make sure there's no deficiencies and try keep on top of the plants requirements. Balance is key, more nutes don't mean more bud...but starving a plant for a week to two weeks when it's ripening up is a definate way to reduce yield.
> 
> Anyone wanna tell me how you flush organic soil? Organics are the same ions and metsbolites as synthetics once uptaken by the plant, why does it not require flushing?



I was just thinking this last night but forgot... good call. Im not sure on this part, and hopefully someone can clear that up but I was under the impression that once the roots and plant broke the nutrients down into food it's the same regardless if the Nitrogen came from bat shit or a bottle of synth.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> I think we agree on everything other than what flushing is.
> Most growers I know and on this forum shoot for maximum growth - they push 1200ppm with some even reaching as high as 3000ppm. If you maintain 1200ppm through flower you are overfeeding - at least compared to every other industry.
> 
> Hydro has no substrate to retain nutrients so lowering ppm late in flower is in my mind flushing - you are immediately not exposing your plants to excess.
> ...


What you're referring to is properly called "leaching". It's the process of "flushing" all the excess salts out of a medium and is excellent for correcting feeding mistakes or clearing out built up salts. 

What we are stating is that pre-harvest flushing has no outcome on taste, smell, smoothness or burning. 

If you feel so strongly about smooth bud I'd advise you read-up on Riddlem3's Preharvest fermentation guide. It's what some hippy heard/read wrong the invented flushing


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> I think we agree on everything other than what flushing is.
> Most growers I know and on this forum shoot for maximum growth - they push 1200ppm with some even reaching as high as 3000ppm. If you maintain 1200ppm through flower you are overfeeding - at least compared to every other industry.
> 
> Hydro has no substrate to retain nutrients so lowering ppm late in flower is in my mind flushing - you are immediately not exposing your plants to excess.
> ...



Good to know 

3000 PPM? The highest PPM I've seen was on another forum and he reached about 2000 or just under. He had problems with overfeeding.

1200 PPM might be overfeeding compared to every other industry, but if it doesn't cause overfeeding and the levels aren't too high, and you can't spot any fault or harm to your plants, I wouldn't call it overfeeding.
This is variable for each grow, and depends on a lot of other variables. But I wouldn't call 1200 PPM overfeeding (I assume EC).

Flushing is generally done with RO water or as a replacement tap water sat out for several days.
I have very rarely read about flushers just lowering their PPM, and I wouldn't call lowering PPM flushing, except if you lowered PPM 90+% or the like (which is equivalent to flushing or very closely so).

Yes I agree, in soil nutrients accumulate, but the discussion about flushing soil is entirely different than hydro, and one I think we agree on.
What you say about soil flushing is what I would call leaching, it's an 'error correcting measure', in this case the "error" is the accumulation of nutrients in the soil.
And I would advice people who grow in soil to flush every other or every third feeding (watering) to also flush to get the soil to a better nutrient level and reduce accumulation.

I have not had any issues running my plants as close to 100% as possible in the last weeks, without flushing.
Maybe some people do have those issues, but I still think flushing in hydro is overrated and unsubstantiated to some degree.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Hell no I don't overfeed either, I just make sure there's no deficiencies and try keep on top of the plants requirements. Balance is key, more nutes don't mean more bud...but starving a plant for a week to two weeks when it's ripening up is a definate way to reduce yield.
> 
> Anyone wanna tell me how you flush organic soil? Organics are the same ions and metsbolites as synthetics once uptaken by the plant, why does it not require flushing?


Organic amendments are not soluble by water. An example of an organic amendment would be alfalfa meal - picture a piece of alfalfa in the dirt in your pot, if you run water over it will it dissolve and run out the bottom of the pot? No. Organic amendments slowly feed your plants as they break down into their constituents and are used almost as soon as they become available.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> Good to know
> 
> 3000 PPM? The highest PPM I've seen was on another forum and he reached about 2000 or just under. He had problems with overfeeding.
> 
> ...


We are only talking about hydro? I thought this was a soil flushing discussion. You recommend flushing in soil? Yes flushing is the forum term for leeching when it comes to soil.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> What you're referring to is properly called "leaching". It's the process of "flushing" all the excess salts out of a medium and is excellent for correcting feeding mistakes or clearing out built up salts.
> 
> What we are stating is that pre-harvest flushing has no outcome on taste, smell, smoothness or burning.
> 
> If you feel so strongly about smooth bud I'd advise you read-up on Riddlem3's Preharvest fermentation guide. It's what some hippy heard/read wrong the invented flushing


I'm saying that if you have a strong accumulation of nutrients in soil, like you would have if driving your plants at 100%, and do not get rid of this accumulation, then the plant can and will absorb a surplus of nutrients, and in that case there can be an outcome on taste and smell.

Likewise will happen if you run your hydro plants at a super high rate of nutrients late into flower.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> We are only talking about hydro? I thought this was a soil flushing discussion. You recommend flushing in soil? Yes flushing is the forum term for leeching when it comes to soil.


Yes I'm pretty sure we're talking about hydro, since most of us agree that leaching in soil is sometimes necessary as an error correcting measure or to clear salt buildup.
Since SirLancelot, Harrekin and myself have mentioned in this and other threads that leaching in soil is sometimes necessary as an error correcting measure or to clear a salt buildup.
In hydro it's a different story, this has been mentioned several times in this thread.
And most of the people who start flushing threads are talking about hydro, the few who ment soil have not gotten the same responses as the hydro + flushing questions.


----------



## thechemist310 (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Anyone wanna tell me how you flush organic soil? Organics are the same ions and metsbolites as synthetics once uptaken by the plant, why does it not require flushing?



This why I giggle at some of the "organic" things I hear. Synthetic chemicals??? BRING IT ON!!!!

The guy I usually score a sack off of had some funky looking dope a few weeks ago. He said, "It looks that way because it's grown with only organic fertilizers." He was told it by someone who was told it by someone.... ha ha

I'm starting my "flush" tonight!!!!

I'm nearing the end of week 8. I have 5 different strains going and all have "medium" to "long" (whatever that means from the attitude website) flowering periods. I treat all of them exactly the same and they all look vibrant and healthy except one. I have one Orange Bud plant. For the last week this plant has been having yellowing fan leaves that also turn orangish red. The rest of the plant and the leaves directly around the buds look nice and green. I have been chalking it up to fall time coming in the plants life.

Is this normal? Do I feed some N? This is what the leaves look like. The buds look great and still have clear/milky trichs.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> I'm saying that if you have a strong accumulation of nutrients in soil, like you would have if driving your plants at 100%, and do not get rid of this accumulation, then the plant can and will absorb a surplus of nutrients, and in that case there can be an outcome on taste and smell.
> 
> Likewise will happen if you run your hydro plants at a super high rate of nutrients late into flower.


I agree, but since we who don't flush our hydro grown plants are running normally balanced PPMs we do not see any reason to flush, and this is the entire discussion in a sentence.
People keep saying, flush last 2 weeks in flowering, even in hydro, you get better tasting weed and it burns better and is less harsh on the throat.
We say, bullshit, not proven, at least Harrekin and I have done experiments with leaching and have seen no improvements, except a lot of extra hassle.

Since we aren't overfeeding, we don't need to correct anything.
A lot of people claim it's still necessary, regardless of how our PPMs are, they just do it because they believe it will somehow improve taste, be less harsh on the throat and burn 'cleaner'.


I would like to stress that I do not recommend or believe in pre-harvest flushing but I do believe in error correction with regards to flushing.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Organic amendments are not soluble by water. An example of an organic amendment would be alfalfa meal - picture a piece of alfalfa in the dirt in your pot, if you run water over it will it dissolve and run out the bottom of the pot? No. Organic amendments slowly feed your plants as they break down into their constituents and are used almost as soon as they become available.


So organically fed plants have no store of mineral ions? I think with all due respect you're misunderstanding how it works. With organics microorganisms break large organic molecules down into their constitutent elements which are then taken up by the plant in the same manner as synthetic/chemical nutrients (as on a molecular scale they are the same chemicals). The only difference between the two is the speed of delivery...so how is it that accumulations in tissues as youve said before doesn't occur with organics?

And by saying "used up" immediately can you elaborate on that statement? How exactly does the plant "use it up" and how does this differ between organics and chemical nutes?


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Lancelot is a soil grower... And in his first post directly compares growing MJ in soil to row crops in soil.
> 
> So everyone agrees that flushing is necessary in soil if you run your nutes hot while late in flower and that lowering ppm towards the end of hydro is good... lol. Too funny.
> 
> So how is flushing a myth?


The crux of my point still applies mate.

I do not believe in pre harvest flushing, not in soil nor in hydro.
When I said I believe in leaching soil, I specified I ment as an error correcting measure, not as a pre harvest flush.
No, I have not said lowering PPMs is good, and I do not lower them myself.



Pre harvest flushing _is_ a myth.
You can leach to error correct some mistakes or to clear a salt buildup.
This is doable in both soil and hydro.

I do not believe that pre harvest flushing helps anything, I think it starves the plant in it's most critical hour.

You have overanalyzed my words again, I did not say I believe in flushing (what most people think of as pre harvest flushing).
I do not believe in it.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Also just another point. When you do a Preharvest flush and your leaves are beginning to yellow, you ARE NOT causing the plant to consume excess nutrients, what you are actually doing is making the plant cannibalise its own structures in order to feed newly grown material. So your point about excess nutrients is void, as yellowing leaves from deficiency is a sign of a lack of nutrients,not a sign of usage of an excess.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> So organically fed plants have no store of mineral ions? I think with all due respect you're misunderstanding how it works. With organics microorganisms break large organic molecules down into their constitutent elements which are then taken up by the plant in the same manner as synthetic/chemical nutrients (as on a molecular scale they are the same chemicals). The only difference between the two is the speed of delivery...so how is it that accumulations in tissues as youve said before doesn't occur with organics?
> 
> And by saying "used up" immediately can you elaborate on that statement? How exactly does the plant "use it up" and how does this differ between organics and chemical nutes?


Used up = absorbed by the plant out of the soil. You understand how CEC works right? My amendments are broken down into ions which either attach themselves to soil particles or travel through the soil solution to my plants at which point they are absorbed. Once the plant has absorbed the ion it can no longer be leeched out of the soil solution. The ions attached to the soil particles similarly will not be leeched out of the soil solution. 

So with water soluble chemical nutes if i dose 1 cup and then flush my soil thoroughly I can flush out 1 cup. If I don't flush it out it sits there in the soil solution (or dehydrated in a crystalline salt form) till absorbed. If I put the equivalent amount of N,P,or K as an organic amendment I can flush all I want and the amendment will still be there. A small portion of the currently available ions in the soil solution will be washed away but that is all and the amount that is washed away is quickly replaced.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 20, 2011)

thechemist310 said:


> This why I giggle at some of the "organic" things I hear. Synthetic chemicals??? BRING IT ON!!!!
> 
> The guy I usually score a sack off of had some funky looking dope a few weeks ago. He said, "It looks that way because it's grown with only organic fertilizers." He was told it by someone who was told it by someone.... ha ha
> 
> ...



You have deficiency, but it's common in late flowering.
What are your PPM levels?
And may I say the leaf is quite beautiful, the blending of the colours looks nice.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> Used up = absorbed by the plant out of the soil. You understand how CEC works right? My amendments are broken down into ions which either attach themselves to soil particles or travel through the soil solution to my plants at which point they are absorbed. Once the plant has absorbed the ion it can no longer be leeched out of the soil solution. The ions attached to the soil particles similarly will not be leeched out of the soil solution.
> 
> So with water soluble chemical nutes if i dose 1 cup and then flush my soil thoroughly I can flush out 1 cup. If I don't flush it out it sits there in the soil solution (or dehydrated in a crystalline salt form) till absorbed. If I put the equivalent amount of N,P,or K as an organic amendment I can flush all I want and the amendment will still be there. A small portion of the currently available ions in the soil solution will be washed away but that is all and the amount that is washed away is quickly replaced.


So considering you can't flush organic amendments from soil, how is it that organically fed plants don't taste/burn harsh? They are being fed right the way to harvest...exactly the same as our chemically fed plants and Iv stated already that they feed the same ions regardless of chemical or synthetic.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 20, 2011)

lets see whats the difference between fertilizers that are chelated soluble salts and "* large organic molecules*"(organic derived nutrients) that are broken down . . .. . . . . . . . . .\

isn't the difference like you stated delivery, the process that absorbses chelated salts and the process where minerals(not organic molecules . . . .essential macro and micro nutrients are for the most part not organic and are minerals) are converted into similar macro and micro nutrients that are able to be absorb, isn't that why there is a difference in chelated soluble nutrients and organically derived nutrients . . . .

I mean

N-is a mineral, not organic
P-is a mineral, not organic
K-is a mineral, not organic

and the list goes on , so whats the difference in organics and water soluble nutrients again, i thought it was delivery and the process at which the nutrients are converted to be absorbed easier

and again to go back to the point a faded(lack of essential nutrients) plant is a flushed plant . . . .. . . . . . organic or not


to answer your proposed question, not everyone's sense of taste and smell are the same


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 20, 2011)

Yea I was gonna say that orange is pretty sweet lookin! what strain is that? and YES I heard it again from Harriken Canibalism!! that is what it is doing when it turns yellow and wilts away. I mean im just going off of my experience in the garden and whenever things are yellowing out and wilting that means their dying, I like getting my fruit (yes I know it's not a fruit on a bud plant, but the end product all the same) from green healthy plants not wilting plants. My green beans always taste best off of a healthy plant. Right right right comparing row crops with MJ. If im wrong well Im wrong, I just prefer my plant not to suffer, I like to spoil them and let them stay nice a green and healthy.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> So considering you can't flush organic amendments from soil, how is it that organically fed plants don't taste/burn harsh? They are being fed right the way to harvest...exactly the same as our chemically fed plants and Iv stated already that they feed the same ions regardless of chemical or synthetic.


You will never have the extreme excess that promotes the 400-16000% increase in nutrient storage - simply cannot reach the same levels - the soil biology prevents it from happening; as the levels rise the process slows... It is really really hard to burn a plant with organic amendments as well...

Essentially the organic amendment approach has built in fuzzy logic - if the nutrients get extreme the process releasing them slows, as they are used up it increases.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> You will never have the extreme excess that promotes the 400-16000% increase in nutrient storage - simply cannot reach the same levels - the soil biology prevents it from happening; as the levels rise the process slows... You can't burn a plant with organic amendments either...


Yes you can, it's not as easy as with readily absorbable nutrients but of course you can burn a plant with organics. Time for you to go Google and learn some more.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Yes you can, it's not as easy as with readily absorbable nutrients but of course you can burn a plant with organics. Time for you to go Google and learn some more.


I immediately changed that - of course anything is possible. It is really really hard. I have never seen anyone do it. And Im talking organic amendments. Bat guano for instance is a water soluble organic nutrient which is not the same. I have seem super super fresh (same day fresh) steer manure shock a plant once but it never burnt - that's one of the hottest amendments I know of and no one I know would use fresh steer manure.


----------



## hempknightt (Dec 20, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> I just prefer my plant not to suffer, I like to spoil them and let them stay nice a green and healthy.


...Untill i cut them in half at the waste, hang them upside down until they are dead, and stuff their corpse into a jar for a month before ultimately lighting them on fire and inhaling them into my lungs.

Yeah I always thought it was sad that people treat their plants like babies then at the very end starve them for two weeks then cut off their light and then well anyways... The life of a MJ plant is a sad one indeed.

Also i dont believe in flushing but i do think a dark period for a day before harvest is good.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Gastanker said:


> I immediately changed that - of course anything is possible. It is really really hard. I have never seen anyone do it. And Im talking organic amendments. Bat guano for instance is a water soluble organic nutrient which is not the same. I have seem super super fresh (same day fresh) steer manure shock a plant once but it never burnt - that's one of the hottest amendments I know of and no one I know would use fresh steer manure.


So by your logic some organics need to be flushed and others not? No offense man, but you're walking all over yourself.


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> So by your logic some organics need to be flushed and others not? No offense man, but you're walking all over yourself.


Some organics are water soluble and some are not. Really simple. Go to your local hydro shop or nursery and look at the back of the organic products, most will state what % is water soluble and what % is not. 

Primarily Non water soluble**** - 
Alfalfa meal
Cotton seed meal
All manure
Blood meal
Bone meal
Kelp meal - there is an exception - you can find premineralized water soluble kelp meal
Green sand
Feather meal
...

Most everything other than the guanos. If add too much N/P through guano you can flush it out - the N/P in guano is already an ion (ammonium oxelate, urate, and phosphates, all salts and salts = ion). You cannot flush out alfalfa meal - the nitrogen in alfalfa meal is tied up in the cellular material, this material needs to be broken down before the nitrogen is in an ionic form making it accessible to the plant and able to be flushed away.

Let me put it this way - I could mix 2 lbs kelp meal, 2 lbs cotton seed meal, 2 lbs alfalfa meal and grow a plant in the mixture with nothing else added. The plant wouldn't do well as it would be missing quite a bit but it isn't going to burn - and no none of this material will flush through my smartpot.

**** You can premineralize organic amendments. Bottles organic lines are preminerized organic amendments - they have taken the raw amendment and exposed it to bacteria (or a chemical process) in order to convert the active material into an ionic water soluble form that is immediately available for uptake.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 20, 2011)

Their form in the soil is of no relevance to the discussion, I'm amazed you think it does. 

The fact is the plant uptakes the same ions from organic or chemical, therefore flushing should be necessary for both...maybe even more so with organic because it continues to feed the plant until harvest. 

The people who have actually tried both flushing and not flushing have said its pointless...have you tried both?


----------



## Gastanker (Dec 20, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Their form in the soil is of no relevance to the discussion, I'm amazed you think it does.
> 
> The fact is the plant uptakes the same ions from organic or chemical, therefore flushing should be necessary for both...maybe even more so with organic because it continues to feed the plant until harvest.
> 
> The people who have actually tried both flushing and not flushing have said its pointless...have you tried both?


They are all different ions... NH4NO3 is not the same as NH3 which is not the same as C[SUB]2[/SUB]H[SUB]8[/SUB]N[SUB]2[/SUB]O[SUB]4....[/SUB]

They get broken down into the same ions...

The form plays a huge role. We are talking about the amount of available nutrients and the form the organic nutrients are in defines the amount that is available; 1 lb of 2-0-0 alfalfa meal is .02lbs of nitrogen but not .02lbs of nitrogen in the absorb-able form NH4 until processed by bacteria, before the nitrogen is processed it is essentially irrelevant except that it can at one point be converted. You cannot have super high levels as the soil biology will not allow it. Did you read these and look at the chart?

*









* 

Do you disagree with what they are saying? 

Yes I have compared the two. I have grown chemmy bud and I can taste the difference.


----------



## Afka (Dec 20, 2011)

Flushing helps the plant rid itself of chlorophyll it no longer needs at the end of it's life cycle. As the chlorophyll breaks down, it reveals the carotenoid and anthocyanin pigments hidden beneath, given plants their gold, orange, yellow, purple and blue hues late in it's life cycle.

Excessive nitrogen, or elevated salinity during the end life cycles of the plant can prevent it from going through it's natural senescence and the plant will have greener vibrant leaves which may not senesce properly. While this has nothing to do with potency, it means you will have lots more chlorophyll.

WHICH BRINGS US TO THE IMPORTANT POINT: If you know how to cure properly, you can avoid flushing and harvest bright green plants and remove the harsh chlorophyll burn many people equate to "nutrients". In hydro, you're better off tapering down the solution ppm until they reach a mature point and only then should you quit adding back nutrients. FLUSHING or natural SENESCENSE make curing much easier and more effective, the chlorophyll will have begun decomposing during the ripening phase, instead of after chopping.


----------



## watchthethrone (Dec 20, 2011)

Do you think, or do you personally flush the plant every 4 weeks? Not talking about pre-flowering, just during growing. I'm talking about a hydroponics system.


----------



## wbd (Dec 20, 2011)

Afka said:


> Flushing helps the plant rid itself of chlorophyll it no longer needs at the end of it's life cycle. As the chlorophyll breaks down, it reveals the carotenoid and anthocyanin pigments hidden beneath, given plants their gold, orange, yellow, purple and blue hues late in it's life cycle.
> 
> Excessive nitrogen, or elevated salinity during the end life cycles of the plant can prevent it from going through it's natural senescence and the plant will have greener vibrant leaves which may not senesce properly. While this has nothing to do with potency, it means you will have lots more chlorophyll.
> 
> WHICH BRINGS US TO THE IMPORTANT POINT: If you know how to cure properly, you can avoid flushing and harvest bright green plants and remove the harsh chlorophyll burn many people equate to "nutrients". In hydro, you're better off tapering down the solution ppm until they reach a mature point and only then should you quit adding back nutrients. FLUSHING or natural SENESCENSE make curing much easier and more effective, the chlorophyll will have begun decomposing during the ripening phase, instead of after chopping.


This is the most believable of any explanation I've heard yet. I'm too lazy and just don't care enough about all of the science behind this debate to check it out, but I'll be interested to see what kind of replies you get. 

If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying flushing doesn't really matter one way or the other, if anything it's a head-start on the benefits you'll get from a proper cure anyhow. Which is exactly what most people say who actually took the time to compare flush/no flush with a proper dry and cure.


----------



## hempknightt (Dec 20, 2011)

If there is no difference between flushing and not flushing wouldnt flushing be better just because your just giving it water and saving nutes/money? I would think that not flushing would mean bigger yields.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 20, 2011)

hempknightt said:


> If there is no difference between flushing and not flushing wouldnt flushing be better just because your just giving it water and saving nutes/money? I would think that not flushing would mean bigger yields.


if $3.50 matters too you. (Im guestimating but we use a couple teaspoons I mean what does that break down per bottle... not much really) 

and *afta* that's interesting thanks for the info! just caught on one part. " Flushing helps the plant rid itself of chlorophyll it no longer needs at the end of it's life cycle. As the chlorophyll breaks down, it reveals the carotenoid and anthocyanin pigments hidden beneath, given plants their gold, orange, yellow, purple and blue hues late in it's life cycle."

I just had an LA confidential finish that was COMPLETELY purple all leaves, stems even my buds in the curing jar look almost black their so dark purple. I had a blue widow that was mostly purple as well. but I don't flush so the chlorophyll wouldn't have broken down and would still be there in the leaves.but my leaves are purple not green, I thought the blue and purple hues were due to colder temps?


----------



## Afka (Dec 20, 2011)

Declining environmental factors can also help a plant along into senescence, the act of retrieving stored compounds and shedding their leaves in fall.

Also, flushing is not obligatory for this to happen, as you can simply lower your feeding schedule, or start watering with plain water during ripening (without necessarily creating massive runoff aka "flushing") The plant will eventually stop taking up Nitrogen on it's own, it's got plenty of reserves in it's leaves you want to start using up. If you time it right, you should have no yield or quality robbing deficiencies.

Another discussion point could be chelated highly soluble synthetic nutrients that aren't organically synthesized, having large amounts of these molecules in the water solution compared to natural micro-ecosystems in the rhizosphere could significantly affect taste. 

But really, it's all in the cure.


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 20, 2011)

Afka said:


> Declining environmental factors can also help a plant along into senescence, the act of retrieving stored compounds and shedding their leaves in fall.
> 
> Also, flushing is not obligatory for this to happen, as you can simply lower your feeding schedule, or start watering with plain water during ripening (without necessarily creating massive runoff aka "flushing") The plant will eventually stop taking up Nitrogen on it's own, it's got plenty of reserves in it's leaves you want to start using up. If you time it right, you should have no yield or quality robbing deficiencies.
> 
> ...


fuck... where do I start? I think I posted in page one havent read most of this and have 100 million things to say!

Afta, this is at you. I would like to think ur statement is correct about flushing removing chlorophyl earlier rather than during cure. I doubt that either flushing or curing could ALONE get rid of all chlorophyl, but a combonation of each (or instead of flushing just cutting back on nutes towards the end) would have the desired effect. Just hypothesizing. 
Do you have any scientific data or any factual claim made by a respected source?
Again sorry if u posted it already, havent read the whole thread


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 20, 2011)

Afka said:


> Declining environmental factors can also help a plant along into senescence, the act of retrieving stored compounds and shedding their leaves in fall.
> 
> Also, flushing is not obligatory for this to happen, as you can simply lower your feeding schedule, or start watering with plain water during ripening (without necessarily creating massive runoff aka "flushing") The plant will eventually stop taking up Nitrogen on it's own, it's got plenty of reserves in it's leaves you want to start using up. If you time it right, you should have no yield or quality robbing deficiencies.
> 
> ...


I would say alot of people, me included, use "flushing" in the sense of using only water (ph'd no nutes) for the last 1-2 weeks, with the basic minimum runoff each time.


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 20, 2011)

rocknratm said:


> Im am fucking sick of these arguments. There are legit reasons a flush would be necessary, and excess (usually alot of it) can cause chemically tasting weed. I just got the grow bible by cervantes to go along with my one by green (both great).
> "how to tell when fertilizer will affect taste:
> 1. leaf tips and fringes are burnt
> 2. leaves are brittle at harvest
> ...


I havent read fact about chlorophyl getting lushed out tho... ill look doubt ill find anything. Ive been in these books with a tiny comb.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 21, 2011)

rocknratm said:


> I havent read fact about chlorophyl getting lushed out tho... ill look doubt ill find anything. Ive been in these books with a tiny comb.


Again I replied to your Cervantes comment already, he copies other peoples info into his book and makes no effort to hide it...therefore if his source is incorrect his book will be incorrect. Just cos someone collects information from multiple sources and puts it in a book doesn't make them an expert anyways tho. 

Again I'll say it for the millionth time, flushing rids the plant of nothing, it merely translocates (mobile) chemical elements from the leaves to the flowers to ensure the seeds survive. For example yellowing leaves means N is being translocated from the leaves (sink) to the flowers (drain). 

And fertiliser isn't "used up"...the only things a plant "gives off" are O2, C02 and a small quantity of water vapour. N (for example) being an element, not a compound, cannot be divided smaller than N, it's merely moved from one place to another when flushing happens...therefore if anything you are encouraging chemical elements INTO the buds FROM the leaves by flushing. 

What makes plants burn badly, taste harsh, burn your throat, etc is a magical substance called C6 H12 O6 which is not broken down if you dry too quickly. 

Chlorophyll doesn't taste all that bad, it has a slight minty taste, not the "chemical" taste some describe so its not the chlorophyll.


----------



## cues (Dec 21, 2011)

God this is getting boring. We should call RIU the 'Flushing Argument' site.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 21, 2011)

I've been googleing and googleing leaching/flushing for improved taste with no luck. Every time I run across some plant that has been tested they say that MANY factors including nutrients wether organic or synthetic have a play in the outcome of taste. but I can't find ANYWHERE about flushing soil to rinse out the chemicals inside a plant... Prolly because that doesn't happen and doesn't even seem probable. We all agree that salt builds up in the soil as the info below stats. AGREED. But the idea of dumping heaping amounts of water into your soil to "rinse" the chemicals out of buds is just rediculous, Please someone provide some credible information on why this theory is still believed! Im just wanting to make sure I didn't miss something somewhere. 
[h=2]Definition of Leaching[/h]

Leaching refers to the process by which chemicals, nutrients and other soluble matter in soil are dissolved by excess water and washed away.


[h=2]Leaching and Soil[/h]

Leaching of soil occurs naturally and is part of the process of soil formation. When soil becomes saturated with rainwater, water travels downward, into groundwater or into springs and eventually rivers, lakes and streams. In the process, substances such as iron, aluminum, calcium and organic matter are carried deep into the soil or washed away altogether.


[h=2]Leaching Potted Plants[/h]

Leaching is a beneficial technique for washing excess salts and fertilizers from the soil of potted plants. When you apply fertilizer repeatedly to potted plants, salts from the fertilizer build up in the soil and can burn plant roots. You can sometimes see a ring of salt on the outside of clay pots or around the top of the soil. The College of Agriculture & Life Sciences at the University of Arizona recommends leaching potted plants every four to six months to prevent salts from accumulating. To leach a potted plant, pour approximately twice the amount of water as the pot can hold on the top of the soil and let it drain completely.


[h=2]Nitrogen and Water Pollution[/h]

Leaching becomes a problem when pesticides and fertilizers from the soil are leached into water supplies. The leaching of nitrogen is of particular concern. Nitrogen, an important plant nutrient, occurs naturally in soil as a result of decomposing plant and animal matter and as a result of soil amendments such as animal manure and nitrogen fertilizers. During times of heavy rainfall, nitrogen is converted into nitrate, a mobile form of nitrogen which moves easily with the flow of water. When nitrate is leached into groundwater and streams, it becomes potentially harmful to pregnant animals and their young. When it enters private wells and water supplies, nitrate poses a threat to humans---especially babies less than 1 year of age. According to the University of Missouri Extension, nitrate poisoning in infants causes internal suffocation or "blue baby syndrome."


[h=2]Organic Farming and Leaching[/h]

Organic farming methods can be helpful in reducing the amount of pesticides and nitrogen leached into water supplies. The USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture reports that, in a study by Washington State University, nitrogen leaching was four to five times greater in trees fertilized using synthetic fertilizers than those fertilized using organic methods. Some ways you can reduce harmful soil leaching are by increasing the organic content of your soil, using natural slow-release fertilizers, and avoiding the use of pesticides whenever possible.



Read more: What Is the Meaning of Leaching? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6570144_meaning-leaching_.html#ixzz1hD5D5HbE

I don't know how credible Ehow.com is (lol) but I imagine it's not too far off. If someone has a better link to info please, by all means share. ​


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 21, 2011)

rocknratm said:


> I would say alot of people, me included, use "flushing" in the sense of using only water (ph'd no nutes) for the last 1-2 weeks, with the basic minimum runoff each time.



That is exactly what I said to Gastanker, that he has a different view of flushing than many people on this forum do.
I'm not saying I believe in the pre-harvest flushing method (what most people on this forum think the word 'flushing' means).

Leaching is useful as an error correcting measure and a good way to clear a salt buildup, in both soil and hydro.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 21, 2011)

@SirLancelot:

The information you provided about leaching seems to be credible.



> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


4-6 months might be a tight variable, I know some people who grow in soil who leach their pots (in their windows) ever other month.
But they might just be over reaching trying not to harm their plants.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 21, 2011)

right, I read that about every 4months or so. and completely agree with it being an error correcting measure. I don't leach just because I figure My plants are only in pots like 3-4mo max and after that the soil isn't re-used so I can't imagine too much salt build up plus I keep the mindset of under feeding is better than overfeeding. BUt even with this information it doesn't make sense how flushing in the last weeks (pre-harvest flushing) would make any sense. Ok yea it cleans the salts out of soil that can cause problems with roots but other than that it's just rinsing soil.


----------



## Joedank (Dec 22, 2011)

@lance- the leaching of the soil is Supposed to make the plant use the salts stored in the vacuole of the cell it was not until recently studies have been published claiming the vacuole can hold other things like carbs and complexes of aminos...
Thus disputing the "vacuole full of salt thorium "


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 22, 2011)

Joedank said:


> @lance- the leaching of the soil is Supposed to make the plant use the salts stored in the vacuole of the cell it was not until recently studies have been published claiming the vacuole can hold other things like carbs and complexes of aminos...
> Thus disputing the "vacuole full of salt thorium "


so does this research suggest that leaching or flushing does have an effect on a harvested plant


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 23, 2011)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so does this research suggest that leaching or flushing does have an effect on a harvested plant


It means it doesn't have an effect.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 23, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> right, I read that about every 4months or so. and completely agree with it being an error correcting measure. I don't leach just because I figure My plants are only in pots like 3-4mo max and after that the soil isn't re-used so I can't imagine too much salt build up plus I keep the mindset of under feeding is better than overfeeding.



Your not overfeeding statement and not leaching or flushing at some point mid-growth due to the short period of time your plants are growing made me think of something worth mentioning even though it is not about pre-harvest flushing. 

Many growers will feed their plants heavily while they are in vegetative growth. If they do not flush before going into flower they are at a higher risk of their plants developing "the claw.' Even though they switch to flowering nutrients and their plants are then receiving less nitrogen in each feeding, there is a good chance there is a nitrogen buildup in the soil. When that is combined with the lesser amount then being given the result can be nitrogen toxicity which destroys the plants vascular system, which is permanent damage, resulting in 'the claw.'


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 23, 2011)

@ Brick Top good call brother! I think I've seen this when A buddy made his own soil mix they had claws for like the longest time into flower...


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 23, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> @ Brick Top good call brother! I think I've seen this when A buddy made his own soil mix they had claws for like the longest time into flower...


'The Claw' will usually show up shortly after plants go into flower, like in a week to three weeks. It is the combined flowering nutes and the built up vegging nutes in soil, the nitrogen in each actually, that does it. Right when the plant is switching to needing less it instead receives an increase over what it was getting in veg. The buildup won't last all that long. Between what is taken in by the plants and leached out when watered it normally won't last all that long unless there was a tremendous buildup, like if someone overfed bad enough to burn their plants a few times in veg and didn't flush the soil, but by then the vascular damage is done and if it is more than minor there is no coming back from it. Minor damage won't repair itself but the plant can still do well even with it. But if there is major damage, then you have trouble, right here in River City.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 24, 2011)

I just smoked an unflushed bud that's partially dry and no bad taste, it's burning perfect and white ash... Any of the flushers care to explain? Just curious why mine don't need flushing but so many others claim to NEED it.


----------



## wbd (Dec 24, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> I just smoked an unflushed bud that's partially dry and no bad taste, it's burning perfect and white ash... Any of the flushers care to explain? Just curious why mine don't need flushing but so many others claim to NEED it.


Well hell, no need to cure it either I guess! Since it's already so yummy...


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 24, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> I just smoked an unflushed bud that's partially dry and no bad taste, it's burning perfect and white ash... Any of the flushers care to explain? Just curious why mine don't need flushing but so many others claim to NEED it.


your one experience proves it, no question, there could be no difference between your results and anyone elses.....
uh, not.


----------



## KushDog (Dec 24, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> I just smoked an unflushed bud that's partially dry and no bad taste, it's burning perfect and white ash... Any of the flushers care to explain? Just curious why mine don't need flushing but so many others claim to NEED it.



well if it worked for you, everyone should not flush, you proved us flushers wrong


----------



## bigv1976 (Dec 24, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> I just smoked an unflushed bud that's partially dry and no bad taste, it's burning perfect and white ash... Any of the flushers care to explain? Just curious why mine don't need flushing but so many others claim to NEED it.


I think you are full of shit. No partially dried bud is gonna burn good regardless of if it is flushed or not. Spread some more bullshit because the thousands of posts on here that are full of bullshit arent enough.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 24, 2011)

Wait a second, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm just asking why the lack of "chemical" taste? It could (and will be) smoother and taste stronger with a cure...but it's better than street weed smell/taste wise. 

Im just asking why mine never tastes of "chemicals" cos I never flush.


----------



## bigv1976 (Dec 24, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Wait a second, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm just asking why the lack of "chemical" taste? It could (and will be) smoother and taste stronger with a cure...but it's better than street weed smell/taste wise.
> 
> Im just asking why mine never tastes of "chemicals" cos I never flush.


If you never flush how would you know the difference? If you are raised from a baby eating cat shit then eventually you will like cat shit for supper. That doesnt make cat shit a delicacy.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 24, 2011)

you know I had my buddy come over last night who knows more of this area than myself. He graduated with some sort of biology degree (not botony but he still has an understanding) anyways we discussed this thouroughly. ANd he didn't know FOR SURE either way and I explained all of the points from both sides. He agreed it's a good argument and it could go either way, but he sees my main point which is the concept of starving my plants before harvest. No alot argue it's not starving it's using up excess in the leaves, ok thats your view, this is mine. well through the discussion we realized something that no one is really taken into effect... The difference's in palets per person. Him and I could smoke the same bowl of nug but we both experience a different taste. Each Human has his/her own set of taste buds that are specialized for that person. some being more sensitive to tastes than other.Each marijuana plant has it's own genes and is gonna differ from the next (in general) thus causing bud plants to differ from one another throughout the grow and the taste of the final product. So we concluded that it may be possible chemicals are in the buds but doubt it just because of how the nutrients are broken down in the soil and how it's uptaken by the plant. NOt to mention how does a plant know to wash all of the nutrients out of the bud from when it gets a flush? all your doing is washing nutrients out of soil not plant. Anyways after this long discussion I still can't say for sure one is better than the other. The only thing I can say for sure is what I have personally experienced with my grows. BUt as I've stated before regardless if you pre-harvest flush or not if you grew your plants right and cured them right your gonna have bomb nug regardless that NO ONE will turn down if they find out it's not flushed. which is just assinin to say, like anyone can really tell a fucking difference from a well grown cured bud. But i guess everyone tastes different and some claim they can taste chemicals yet how come they don't taste chemicals in all the food they eat? and only the MJ they smoke?

another theory I believe, We all get too stoned and think we taste, see, smell things that aren't actually there. Were micromanaging a weed but these debates are neccessary as they are the stepping stones to a better understanding of how our plants grow.

Peace and Love brothers


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 24, 2011)

bigv1976 said:


> If you never flush how would you know the difference? If you are raised from a baby eating cat shit then eventually you will like cat shit for supper. That doesnt make cat shit a delicacy.


Oh I have done before, I found it to be a waste of perfectly good water.


----------



## KushDog (Dec 24, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Oh I have done before, I found it to be a waste of perfectly good water.


I water till the end, no sense depriving them of water


----------



## Izoc666 (Dec 24, 2011)

well peepz i dont know if this is relevant, from my exprience, i got good killer bud chronic from my friend, unflush if you puff once and you will cough real violent but got you stoned immediately ! and high can go on for like 3 or 4 hours and starting worn out later on....and i got kush from the meds who flushed, i puffed several times, yummy, not cough much, got nice high but it will go away in only 2 hours later after i smoked...so the term of high, potency, i rather go for more strong potency and high long hours of ease my pains etc....thats most matter to me...thats how i started to grow my own meds...tried flush and unflush both way...i found it s really easy for me to not overnutes and still retain the potency not as like meds sell nowsdays....IMHO its all about the practice grow, not do with flush anything.

666


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 24, 2011)

KushDog said:


> I water till the end, no sense depriving them of water


....
Nobody deprives their plants of _water_, not even flushers..
Do you even know what flushing is?

Your posts are so ridiculous.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 24, 2011)

I enjoy his insightful posts. lol


----------



## abrownmn (Dec 24, 2011)

k0ijn said:


> I'm pretty sure you are one of the only pro-flush people who don't believe that flushing can get mass out of the plant.
> If you go and look in the many threads there have been about this subject, you will see what kind of stuff people believe.
> 
> No that is not what they're saying, it's what you're saying.
> ...


I partially agree...to an extent. But are you honestly saying that nutrients are ONLY stored and transferred in the leaves of the plant? Also, I use every leaf of every plant for baking etc etc..so are you saying if I don't want to eat a bunch of chemicals etc.. that I Should flush? Also, It sent me right to this post above so this is ALL that I read so I could be totally wrong, but I am just interested. And in this post you don't point out the Negative effects of flushing ( like I said you might have stated it earlier ) What are they? What is your argument against flushing? Why is it BAD? These are the questions I ask just based off this post. Thanks


----------



## abrownmn (Dec 24, 2011)

Izoc666 said:


> well peepz i dont know if this is relevant, from my exprience, i got good killer bud chronic from my friend, unflush if you puff once and you will cough real violent but got you stoned immediately ! and high can go on for like 3 or 4 hours and starting worn out later on....and i got kush from the meds who flushed, i puffed several times, yummy, not cough much, got nice high but it will go away in only 2 hours later after i smoked...so the term of high, potency, i rather go for more strong potency and high long hours of ease my pains etc....thats most matter to me...thats how i started to grow my own meds...tried flush and unflush both way...i found it s really easy for me to not overnutes and still retain the potency not as like meds sell nowsdays....IMHO its all about the practice grow, not do with flush anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 666


You really think not flushing retains potency? I do not agree. I doubt it has any relevance to potency at all in fact.


----------



## abrownmn (Dec 24, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> Yea as the name implies this thread is about bud that isn't starved before it's harvested a.k.a "flushed" Yes there has been many many arguments about flushing vs not flushing. and yet Everyone who is for flushing does it because someone they know, or someone who is their customer/client does it or asks for it. The people who belief that marijuana is like every other living fucking plant and doesn't need flush have all done expirements and have found out for themselves.
> 
> Ok so I don't flush my bud, and my nugs don't burn harsh nor do they get "black or sparky" for all of you that don't know, this is do to a shitty cure not because nutrients magically moved through the roots up the plant stock (if you have troubles believing this just look up how PLANTS take up nutrients, yes MJ is a plant like any other) and decided to just make a home in your buds. If you understood how plants work or had common sense you'd realize that starving something when it's in it's most crucial stages is iresponsible as a grower. Furthermore no one in the history of agriculture flushes their product, the tobacco industry doesn't flush. Why is marijuana so magically different? It's not, so quit trying to make it something more than it is.
> 
> ...



I see everyone jumping on your bandwagon, but I really don't see why.. you also provide nearly NO evidence that 1. Says not flushing is more beneficial or 2. Flushing is harmful...You give 1 example based upon your own ethos..not very credible IMHO. Yeah, your buds look great and I'm sure they taste great too. Either way you've given ONE uncredible example and the rest is just bashing people who DO flush because, apparently they have no sense or fact at all. When in reality, you look foolish because your doing the exact same thing. Your plants don't get black and crackly? Great. Neither does any bud i've ever smoked, flushed or not. SO, what are you really saying? Or are you just against the "unethical" treatment of plants lol...


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 24, 2011)

I never claimed to be a scientist.
I never claimed to be an expert.
I never claimed to have any credible facts to my theorys
I have done lots of studying and if you took the time to read the thread you would see a shit ton of those facts that you want.
I did this merly to get a rise out of people and to share my opinion with others who believe the same as I. If you want scientific facts you've come to the wrong place this is a forum, try a .gov site or some other offical one. 

lol yes that basically is it I don't like the idea of starving my plant the last weeks of her life my opinion through my experience. but if you want answers to my stance then read i don't want to re type.

I also intended this thread to be informational so if you have any information from doing an expirement yourself I would love to hear about it. 
if you want to attack me personaly you can send me an email or start a new thread, thanks.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 24, 2011)

abrownmn said:


> I partially agree...to an extent. But are you honestly saying that nutrients are ONLY stored and transferred in the leaves of the plant? Also, I use every leaf of every plant for baking etc etc..so are you saying if I don't want to eat a bunch of chemicals etc.. that I Should flush? Also, It sent me right to this post above so this is ALL that I read so I could be totally wrong, but I am just interested. And in this post you don't point out the Negative effects of flushing ( like I said you might have stated it earlier ) What are they? What is your argument against flushing? Why is it BAD? These are the questions I ask just based off this post. Thanks


You need to read all my posts in the discussion I had with Gastanker, in this thread, to understand the crux of my point(s).
I'm not saying that only leaves store nutrients, roots & stem(s) are full of minerals as well. 
According to the chart I linked, the leaves and stem(s) is where the majority of minerals are stored.
I agree that all bodies of the plant contains nutrients and store nutrients to some degree.
With the leaves and stem being the by far majority "shareholders".

If you leach (flush) your plants you by definition also cause nutrient deficiency, which can set in within days or weeks depending on your plants, usually days. If we assume that by leaching we mean replacing the nutrient solution with RO water or tap water, not just a lower solute ratio.
Therefore moveable minerals are moved from the leaves, and it will lower the amount "nutrients" in the leaves.
But you would end up with leaves not worth using in cooking (I assume you want 'fresh' green leaves).

I have stated the negative effects of flushing before.

Positive:
Leaching (flushing) can be used to correct errors in the grow medium.
It can also be used to clear a salt buildup.
Other claims like: improved bud; taste, odour, harshness (less) etc. are *not* scientifically proven in my honest opinion.

Negative:
You cause a nutrient deficiency for your plants (if we assume that by leaching we mean replacing the nutrient solution with RO water or tap water, not just a lower solute ratio).
Because of this (if you look at the char I posted) productivity is lowered. If we assume most experienced growers are at around 85-100% productivity levels (how well the nutrient solution ratio fits the plants need), this means (if we take the char I posted) that you can in theory lose up to 90% of the plants productivity levels.
This can significantly lower final weight and in theory; taste, odour, THC levels and everything else which is affected by how well the plant grows and produces substances (from mineral breakdown procedures to trichome productivity).

I want to specify that I am talking about pre-harvest leaching (flushing).
I believe that leaching can be beneficial if you have grow medium problems and / or salt buildup etc. (in soil & hydro).


----------



## wbd (Dec 24, 2011)

Lots of theory in this thread, so far the majority consensus appears to be NO DIFFERENCE between flushed and unflushed. Of course individual from both camps claim otherwise...

I doubt science will never "prove" (or disprove) subjective quality factors because they are simply a matter of taste, not to mention natural variance in plants plus all of the other things that affect the final product.

26 pages on how to use a hygrometer whilst curing would be sooo much more useful, but I guess we just love beating a dead horse round here.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 25, 2011)

wbd said:


> Lots of theory in this thread, so far the majority consensus appears to be NO DIFFERENCE between flushed and unflushed. Of course individual from both camps claim otherwise...
> 
> I doubt science will never "prove" (or disprove) subjective quality factors because they are simply a matter of taste, not to mention natural variance in plants plus all of the other things that affect the final product.
> 
> 26 pages on how to use a hygrometer whilst curing would be sooo much more useful, but I guess we just love beating a dead horse round here.


So again, you can't prove your point so it's "a matter of taste". Online forums, the place unproven myth and legend becomes reality!


----------



## CEEJR (Dec 25, 2011)

Today I'm am going to run Florakleen for "1 or 2 days" as per the instruction and will post my opinion as I have never flushed but was always a dirt farmer and I'm just finishing up my first hydro attempt. As usual I will be looking for White ash after burn down.


----------



## wbd (Dec 25, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> So again, you can't prove your point so it's "a matter of taste". Online forums, the place unproven myth and legend becomes reality!


Great post. Not.

First, I don't flush, so you're missing my point entirely because it absolutely wasn't to advocate flushing.

Second, TASTE will always be a matter of TASTE. You're seriously going to dispute that?

Third, you want to talk proof? No matter how much botany you want to spew into this particular topic there is essentially zero proof of any of that either in terms of final product. Where are the studies that prove that yield and potency are affected by flushing? Where is any proof at all that plants are starved to the point of affecting final product as you insist? You have theories, that's all you have.

Do you really think you're winning this debate? 

I guess you are so frustrated that you'll say anything, argue with anybody at this point? Maybe you should just let it go...


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 25, 2011)

CEEJR said:


> Today I'm am going to run Florakleen for "1 or 2 days" as per the instruction and will post my opinion as I have never flushed but was always a dirt farmer and I'm just finishing up my first hydro attempt. As usual I will be looking for White ash after burn down.


make sure you cure properly.

idk it doesn't really make sense to dump chemicals into the medium to clear out chemicals... kinda counterproductive isn't it?


----------



## WillyBagseed (Dec 25, 2011)

Flushing does little to nothing, drying, cure, storage and time are the factors that most determine taste and smell.


----------



## rocknratm (Dec 25, 2011)

fuuuuuck.
never ending ect ect


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 26, 2011)

rocknratm said:


> fuuuuuck.
> never ending ect ect


It's better to have one thread which is just continual, than 5 new threads each week about the same subject with the same useless newbies who think they know everything, making ridiculous claims and not backing it up with anything remotely factual.
In this thread at least, there are real discussions, with scientific references and facts.


----------



## Hydropawn (Dec 26, 2011)

You most definitely can get a salt/mineral buildup in plant tissue


----------



## BlazedMonkey (Dec 26, 2011)

Well i was talking to a cop and he was very adamant about "flushing" all the weed he found.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 26, 2011)

BlazedMonkey said:


> Well i was talking to a cop and he was very adamant about "flushing" all the weed he found.


hahaha bastards.


----------



## Impman (Dec 27, 2011)

i work next door to a cannabis club. i go in ere every single day and look at the 100 orms different strains. un flushed weed taste like holy hell and each time its some guy like you thinking their weed is all bad ass. but reality is your bud taste and smells like garbage chemicals. their ais a tremendous difference in taste. i cant believe your did three tests? i say bullshit or your basis of comparrison is wrong or weak. unflushed weed is so obviously gross tasting and smelling. but thats just me im around top shelf weed every day and wanna be top shelf weed that sits for months cuz the grower writes nonsense post about not flushing and backyard science tests


----------



## bigv1976 (Dec 27, 2011)

BlazedMonkey said:


> Well i was talking to a cop and he was very adamant about "flushing" all the weed he found.


This is the best post in the whole thread. Im likin' it and reppin' ya bro.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 27, 2011)

BlazedMonkey said:


> Well i was talking to a cop and he was very adamant about "flushing" all the weed he found.


Tell him you're a part of the remediation effort as well! I have burned every bit of weed I've found ... and my quest to dispose of more is relentless. cn


----------



## BlazedMonkey (Dec 27, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Tell him you're a part of the remediation effort as well! I have burned every bit of weed I've found ... and my quest to dispose of more is relentless. cn


Hahaha Agreed sir and thanks big  
Someone needs to sack up and get multiple samples grown from clone some flushed some unflushed. Properly cure them then Use some lab grade equipment to find the exact composition. 

Or big double blind studies, because as hard as we try bias does creep into our findings sometimes


----------



## Impman (Dec 27, 2011)

Willyßagseed;6826317 said:


> Flushing does little to nothing, drying, cure, storage and time are the factors that most determine taste and smell.


Wrong! So ignorant and wrong! there is a very distinct taste in unflushed plants. i am litterally next door t a dispencary right now. growers like you bring in bud and think its top shelf but it sits for months cuz it smells and taste like nutrients. you growers than dont flush are the equivelant to people who csnt sing a note but think they are the next pop star.


----------



## Impman (Dec 27, 2011)

wbd said:


> Great post. Not.
> 
> First, I don't flush, so you're missing my point entirely because it absolutely wasn't to advocate flushing.
> 
> ...


You can not be serious or your experience with marijuanna is extemly limited to few strains and or growers. unflushed weed is not a matter of taste its freakin nasty as hell. unless you like the taste of poo flush our godamn marijuanna people. difference between right and wrong black and white good vs evil ,= flush vs unflushed. unflushed tsste distinctivly like a s sour wet dog..err how ide imagine one wuld taste.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 27, 2011)

Impman said:


> i work next door to a cannabis club. i go in ere every single day and look at the 100 orms different strains. un flushed weed taste like holy hell and each time its some guy like you thinking their weed is all bad ass. but reality is your bud taste and smells like garbage chemicals. their ais a tremendous difference in taste. i cant believe your did three tests? i say bullshit or your basis of comparrison is wrong or weak. unflushed weed is so obviously gross tasting and smelling. but thats just me im around top shelf weed every day and wanna be top shelf weed that sits for months cuz the grower writes nonsense post about not flushing and backyard science tests


Your so quick to attack with little to no knowledge of growing or the fundamntals of how plants work. Have you grown out some plants and flushed and not flushed? no you haven't... Have you ever grown? Just because you hear stuff in a dispencery doesn't mean it's true, not everyone knows what there talking about. Unlike you I can't just have people tell me things and not find out on my own so I did and came up with these results. and how do you know the buds you did smoke were actually flushed or not? *you don't!!! *because you didn't grow any. Atleast many of us have taken the time to control as many variables as possible and do multiple blind experiments, that's more than you can say you've done.


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Dec 27, 2011)

I dont flush





I dont use chemicals either




100% organic




I dont flush


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 27, 2011)

Impman said:


> You can not be serious or your experience with marijuanna is extemly limited to few strains and or growers. unflushed weed is not a matter of taste its freakin nasty as hell. unless you like the taste of poo flush our godamn marijuanna people. difference between right and wrong black and white good vs evil ,= flush vs unflushed. unflushed tsste distinctivly like a s sour wet dog..err how ide imagine one wuld taste.


Hey Limp man,

I couldn't help but notice some of your other posts in other threads. At first I was going to defend myself and have an actual conversation with you before I realized who you were. Your talkin hella shit to alot of people with alot of knowledge of growing, yet you come in thinking you know it all because you what read 1 book and live next door to a dispencery? Your running around RIU telling people not to listen to good advice and actual facts yet can't provide any facts of your own besides you live next to a dispencery. My favorite is when you were telling *Simon D* he didn't know how to cure and he was all wrong lol. Then you respond with "I cure before dry" how the hell do you do that?! anyways I think if your gonna run your mouth you should maybe start a thread explaining your way of growing sense you have so much knowledge on the subject.


----------



## dannyboy602 (Dec 27, 2011)

Limp man...lolz...that's a little below the belt.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 27, 2011)

lol yea I tried not too... but couldn't help it. Your right, I apologize Impman for the personal attack I intended this to be informational thread not full of petty BS. 

But seriously, just don't talk anymore unless you have some sort of positive input.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Dec 27, 2011)

i bet i can find literally a tonne of different literature telling you that flushing is essential. means fuck all to me, i've done the experiments, i've flushed and not and the plants that weren't flushed not only looked better but had fuller rounder buds, ones that really looked plump.

no other plants are flushed, you could argue that most plants aren't ignited and inhaled but tobacco is, and the revolutionary moment in the tobacco industry regarding quality??? that was when they cured it properly and gave a nice smooth smoke with a nice white ash that wasn't rough or burned poorly. you are trying to say that happens because of flushing???? you can be dam sure that the tobacco industry is growing their stuff as quick as possible and are pumping as much nutes in as they can safely handle. still no flushing goin on

a post of mine from another flush debate, apologies for aggressive nature


----------



## SlimJim503 (Dec 27, 2011)

I stopped flushing and tripled my yield now im a believer in back off the nutrients that last week or two of flower flushing is reserved for fuck up like over nuteing and by backing off i mean real slowly and i feed up until chop and i like to end up feeding them what i started with so like 1/4 recommended dosage. Not harsh tasty white ash when burned and a lot more frosty and plump. I also started taking fan leafs in flower that gave me more dense nugs due to tighter nodes but i do this for space and cuz i only run a 150w but i run 12 or so under it and average 1/2-2oz per 12/12 from seed and mine are true 12/12 from the time they pop soil so no veg time.


----------



## Afka (Dec 30, 2011)

VanishingToaster said:


> are pumping as much nutes in as they can safely handle. still no flushing goin on


Lol, no.
Only the cannabis "industry" promotes such behavior.


----------



## wbd (Dec 30, 2011)

SlimJim503 said:


> I stopped flushing and tripled my yield now im a believer


Incredible, just incredible!

Finally some real evidence that flushing is bad. Bravo, +rep.


----------



## SlimJim503 (Dec 30, 2011)

wbd said:


> Incredible, just incredible!
> 
> Finally some real evidence that flushing is bad. Bravo, +rep.


Been a troll since 07 nice


----------



## VanishingToaster (Dec 30, 2011)

this may help lol


----------



## Afka (Dec 30, 2011)

VanishingToaster said:


> this may help lol


Pff that troll spray is BS; the only way to kill a troll is to starve it 100% of any attention whatsoever.

Banning him, punishing, talking shit to or otherwise will only empower it further!


----------



## SlimJim503 (Dec 30, 2011)

So fellows hows today treating us?


----------



## wbd (Dec 30, 2011)

SlimJim503 said:


> So fellows hows today treating us?


Pretty good, today I got called a troll by a guy who claims to have tripled his yield when he quit flushing. I had a good laugh, twice.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 30, 2011)

we stop pumping information in the thread for a week and restless minds start talking shit... 

Although tripling yield seems a stretch for something so small in such a small time frame, I mean 3x the weight in bud for 2wks extra nutes that your not even giving full strength of. I must ask how do you know for sure that was the reason? I only ask because in my experience I have never noticed any significant difference I could attribute to pre-harvest flushing.


----------



## gudkarma (Dec 30, 2011)

i have done side by sides.
i have made runs flushing for the last two weeks of flower.
i have made runs w/ consistent low ppm throughout the cycle.

& on & on & on. 
i harvest every three weeks by the way so i can change the finish up.

flushing does nothing noticable other than save on nute (which is cool).
i know plenty of fine famers who agree with nutrition to the very end... just like dirt do.

i mean mother nature always flushes her carrots before you yank them from the ground. 

& i love the comparisons of newbies vs experts (impman) as if you have all the knowledge.

those portabella mushrooms i eat never taste like the shit they're grown in? why is this?

why doesn't my lettuce or spinach taste all chemmy... i mean it was definitely grown by big agro?

why dont you frauds ever complain about all the "chem taste" in those cigs you smoke? 
surely they dont use chems on tobacco. or do they?

there is no way on earth low ec, unflushed, properly grown, harvested, dried, and cured top shelf dank isn't AAA+

shit... my herb + $100 against anything you (tiolet) flushers can put up.

sorry i grow, smoke, & sell way too much herb (like i pay my mortgage right now) to even consider any other argument. 

my peeps in europe (e$kobar, who grow tons to your pounds) dont flush either. low ec. full cycle. proper plant love.

simple.


----------



## SlimJim503 (Dec 30, 2011)

Buncha jack wagons on here i tell you what like everyone that signs on has a problem and wants to take it out on another forum member? I dont get it?? That stuff really get you off? 

Simple i was getting less then a 1/2 per 12/12 from seed under my 150 when i was doing 12 now im at 1/2-2oz per plant depending on strain but hey that dont mean shit right and i run single cola plants same seeds same strains. Did i claim to have proof nope i said me and or I not you he or they so that would lead more towards from my experience. My dank is not harsh in the least and its very tasty and from the few i have shared with top of the line. Been smoking for 17 years im on the west coast where we grow and smoke the best in the world and its been like that since dank was called DANK.....Run a test a batch same seeds same everything back on batch off and flush the other batch harvest same time etc cure same way then send that shit to me cuz....bahaha nah but do that shit and you will see for yourself its the cure.


----------



## WillyBagseed (Dec 30, 2011)

Impman said:


> Wrong! So ignorant and wrong! there is a very distinct taste in unflushed plants. i am litterally next door t a dispencary right now. growers like you bring in bud and think its top shelf but it sits for months cuz it smells and taste like nutrients. you growers than dont flush are the equivelant to people who csnt sing a note but think they are the next pop star.


First, more than likely I have been growing longer than you have been alive. 
Second, I never have and never will "bring" or sell cannabis to a dispensary.
Third, if you freaking learn how to grow cannabis in the first place you do not even need to use "chemicals".. ever hear of super soil?
Last, even using nutes you do not need to flush.... do you starve your tomatoes of nutes for a week or two before you eat them?

*The number one reason you get shitty tasting cannabis is improper cure, followed by storage, time and genetics.
*
*You can have the best strain, flush the hell out of it and if you cure it improperly it will taste like shit.*

Not my fault you get shitty "weed" from a legal pot dealer.

Stop posting shit about things you have "heard" and go try it out yourself side by side. *The only reason to do a flush is if you over fert and need to clean up your fuckup.*


----------



## VanishingToaster (Dec 31, 2011)

the people i see champion flushing dont seem to have tried it without flushing, the people that say you dont need to flush have usually flushed and then stopped.

i'd be taking my advice from the people who have tried it both ways. just seems logical no?


----------



## fatboyOGOF (Dec 31, 2011)

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## 714HB (Dec 31, 2011)

the true reason why people flush there plants is because they are impatient they want to smoke the harvest as soon as possible theres no scientific shit behind any of it same reason why they chop their plant early too


----------



## wbd (Dec 31, 2011)

SirLancelot said:


> Although tripling yield seems a stretch for something so small in such a small time frame...


LOL ya think?


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 31, 2011)

VanishingToaster said:


> the people i see champion flushing dont seem to have tried it without flushing, the people that say you dont need to flush have usually flushed and then stopped.
> 
> i'd be taking my advice from the people who have tried it both ways. just seems logical no?


It is funny how that works isn't it?! Im realizing that no matter how much sense and logic are thrown into the convo it's thrown out by arm flailing temper tantrumed growers who claim flushing is neccessary yet don't know for themselves.


----------



## SirLancelot (Dec 31, 2011)

SlimJim503 said:


> Buncha jack wagons on here i tell you what like everyone that signs on has a problem and wants to take it out on another forum member? I dont get it?? That stuff really get you off?
> 
> Simple i was getting less then a 1/2 per 12/12 from seed under my 150 when i was doing 12 now im at 1/2-2oz per plant depending on strain but hey that dont mean shit right and i run single cola plants same seeds same strains. Did i claim to have proof nope i said me and or I not you he or they so that would lead more towards from my experience. My dank is not harsh in the least and its very tasty and from the few i have shared with top of the line. Been smoking for 17 years im on the west coast where we grow and smoke the best in the world and its been like that since dank was called DANK.....Run a test a batch same seeds same everything back on batch off and flush the other batch harvest same time etc cure same way then send that shit to me cuz....bahaha nah but do that shit and you will see for yourself its the cure.


Im sorry if it came out like I was attacking your claim, remember Im on your side I don't starve my babies. I was just wanting you to share your experience with everyone else as you did above  thanks for the info!


----------



## Beansly (Dec 31, 2011)

SlimJim503 said:


> I stopped flushing and tripled my yield


What a load of bullshit. Flush or not, that's your deal, but it's not gonna increase your yeild on way or another... 
If anything, you became a better grower.



gudkarma said:


> my peeps in europe (e$kobar, who grow tons to your pounds) dont flush either.


Commercial growers do a lot of dumb things.
Eskobar is a commercial grower. They don't cure either... They just do it to save time and resources. because money is the bottom line, not quality.

Your right in a way. Flushing was a technique perpetuated by the Dutch to cover up for their sin of over fertilizing. They used to like to pump their plants with as much nutrients as possible. This whole thread is based on the idea of flushing for two whole weeks! I can't believe that people still do this...
That is over generalized, dated information that probably had more to do with growing outdoor 12ft tall plants than growing little indoor plants. It's like saying to hang your buds up till the stems snap. It's vague, old info, that was meant for giant outdoor plants.
I don't stop feeding in the last two weeks either, I dilute the recipe more and more until the end. Then, the last three days is when I do my flush. I think that if you grow it right, you don't need more than a 3 day flush. Besides tasting betting IMO, it aids with the cure by washing out Nitrogen, Potassium and sugars from the leaves.
And your kidding yourself if you don't think smokers can taste things like chemicals and nutrients in the bud. One of my grower buddies can taste what kind of Potassium you use in your bloom booster (mono potassium somtheing or other v. some other sourse of K). People can taste that shit.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 31, 2011)

im still on the fence of this

can anyone of the never flush proponents explain to me how ingesting something and and burning and then inhaling the smoke of something is the same , , , , i mean dont our lungs and digestive system absorb things differently like in different states or different rates .. . . . . how is eating a tomato and smoking it the same . . .. . . . . . .

i would like to see smoke vapor test done and not plant product test which is how you test ingested products . . . . idk my basic understanding of the state of matter(solid,liqiud,gas) almost demands that there would be a difference in the composition of elements as there are combusted vs broken down to/or be absorbed by your body, idk can anyone answer any of these rambling question


----------



## gudkarma (Dec 31, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Commercial growers do a lot of dumb things.
> Eskobar is a commercial grower. They don't cure either... They just do it to save time and resources. because money is the bottom line, not quality.


#1 i dont think this is accurate when modern dutch technique (which i use as well) is geared toward reusable medium and low ec and knowledge of biological plant processes.

these people use hydro to grow veggies. many euro countries do. you mean to tell me people with strict purity, food quality, and culinary traditions ...they're all eating garbage? 

#2 e$ko is a seed maker with many rooms and many projects. commercial sure. his method is very commercial. or is it efficient? i like the later. as far as quality, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude you are fucking joking right? his personal stash would blow your wig off. the shit left on the screens after picking out seed has to be 10x better than anything your fert tasting buddy grows. 

and he cures everything. tons to pounds dude. they cure on a rotating scedule. just like they grow.

you dream about smoking on such a caliber every day. your buddy wishes he could make world class beans with 50 elite clones. you both wish soma & big buddah & the old positronics crew & sannie were your friends ...and dished you their personal gear, super fat male plants, and the like. 

sannie, big buddah, e$ko, soma ...these guys dont smoke quality? laughable. there's not a person who posts in all the entire canna-net that wouldn't love to spark eLs with any of the aforementioned. 

low ec hydro needs no flushing. that simple. there's not s shread of credible info you can give that even a three day flush is proper course of action. 

if anything all your "diluting" is a HUGE time waster. you grow in a closet? how does your system work with hundreds of gallons of nutes and rezzies & tables for different stages of life? 

& washing N & P from the leaves....OMG ...please tell me how that works.

you sure are funny 400w vert dude.


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2011)

Beansly said:


> What a load of bullshit. Flush or not, that's your deal, but it's not gonna increase your yeild on way or another...
> If anything, you became a better grower.
> 
> 
> ...


Your friend can taste the minor differences between phosphates? That is a TOTAL load of bullshit. 

As for a cure being able to get rid of chemical elements...another pile of bullshit. 

Care to post something that isn't bullshit?


----------



## Beansly (Dec 31, 2011)

gudkarma said:


> #1 i dont think this is accurate when modern dutch technique (which i use as well) is geared toward reusable medium and low ec and knowledge of biological plant processes.
> 
> these people use hydro to grow veggies. many euro countries do. you mean to tell me people with strict purity, food quality, and culinary traditions ...they're all eating garbage?
> 
> ...


Well do it your way. With number so you can understand easier.

1) I'm just gonna apologize right off the bat because I didn't want this to turn into a my grower/method is better than your grower/method. And when I said what I said about the 'Dutch Technique', I was talking about 10-15-20 years ago. My point was the flushing is an old idea that needs to be re-thought.

2) I'm sure esko's weed is bombacious but so is the weed grown right here in Vegas and Cali for that matter. We could argue all day who's is better but the truth is, depending on who you get it from, they're probably exactly the same scene. So cut that shit out.

3)And growers who I have more respect for anyways like Shanti, Simon, Chimera and all them flush. So I'll just take their word for it. And no I don't sit up all day dreaming about some fucking plants or whole the hell my friends _could _be... Are _you_ kidding me??? I don't because I know it doesn't make me myself any better or less. Who gives a fuck who you know dude or what your friends have and are; what the fuck have YOU done lately?

Yeah I only grow 400, cause you gotta start somewhere. Anyone who isn't an asshole would know that.
And if you wanna see 'how that works' flush one of your plants with 3x volume of water to medium, and you'll see the leaves start to go yellow and the stems start to go purple (sometimes). It doesn't take a genius to see that.


----------



## Beansly (Dec 31, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Your friend can taste the minor differences between phosphates? That is a TOTAL load of bullshit.
> 
> As for a cure being able to get rid of chemical elements...another pile of bullshit.
> 
> Care to post something that isn't bullshit?


How would i go about proving it to you? Care to post something that is trying to start some shit?


----------



## Harrekin (Dec 31, 2011)

Beansly said:


> How would i go about proving it to you? Care to post something that is trying to start some shit?


It's just your post is so stupidly ridiculous it's unreal. Can tell the different phosphates by taste? That's total shite man. Iv liked/repped some of your posts before but that last one was ridiculous. "People can taste that shit", the people taste the shit coming off that post. 

Happy new years and all but a good dry and cure on good genetics is what it takes for any strain/feed method. I can't taste the difference between the plants I fed PK13/14 and didn't feed (but the PK13/14 plants are a bit bigger!). 
Come on man, people can taste the difference between boosters? Bullshit talk!


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Dec 31, 2011)

so no one is even going to acknowledge that ingesting plant matter is different then inhaling smoke and vapor . . . .. . . . . . . . . and the elements with in the smoke will be converted from one state of matter to another differently then being ingested within the plant structure 

or more to the point the digestion system does not break down plant matter as easily as other foods . . . . .idk just a thought

and seeing that the only evidence that flushing doesnt work are food crops resutls and methods or conjecture and hersay

i say this issue is not as cut and dry as all you people say it is


----------



## gudkarma (Dec 31, 2011)

400w vert dude, let me direct you to post #291


----------



## Beansly (Dec 31, 2011)

Alright then lol, since there's really no way to prove it we'll just have to agree to disagree lol.


----------



## wbd (Dec 31, 2011)

gudkarma said:


> 400w vert dude, let me direct you to post #291


I'm trying to figure out what any of those pictures have to do with flushing... help a brother out.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jan 1, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so no one is even going to acknowledge that ingesting plant matter is different then inhaling smoke and vapor . . . .. . . . . . . . . and the elements with in the smoke will be converted from one state of matter to another differently then being ingested within the plant structure
> 
> or more to the point the digestion system does not break down plant matter as easily as other foods . . . . .idk just a thought
> 
> ...


lets go pseudo intellectuals


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 1, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> lets go pseudo intellectuals


Do you know what the words "chemical element" mean? If you did, you'd realise that regardless of smoked/eaten, once in the body are still the element. 

This is why people preaching about organics is hilarious. Nitrogen as an element cannot be broken down or changed, an element is indivisible without a particle accelerator. "Organic Nitrogen" is just N with other elements stuck to it, which are removed by bacteria in the soil. 

Your whole premise that elements can somehow be removed from a plant or "changed" within the plant is flawed purely cos chemistry doesnt work like that. Also organics is flawed cos the plant uptakes the same elements from their food regardless of "chemical", "synthetic" or "organic". Not to say organic is useless or anything, just the claims it is somehow "different" in it's ultimate chemical makeup is absurd.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 1, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> so no one is even going to acknowledge that ingesting plant matter is different then inhaling smoke and vapor . . . .. . . . . . . . . and the elements with in the smoke will be converted from one state of matter to another differently then being ingested within the plant structure
> 
> or more to the point the digestion system does not break down plant matter as easily as other foods . . . . .idk just a thought
> 
> ...



you should read the whole thread before you demand that we pay attention to ur point. its already been covered. if you want to look for examples of flushing where the matter is being inhaled then you look towards the tobacco industry who's end product is ignited and inhaled.

and for the record they dont flush, but they do cure, google it


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jan 1, 2012)

the tobacco industry is your proof

wtf

they just started giving us cancer too, so im supposed to believe the guys who soak there final product it embalming fluid and ammonia are making choices based on our health 

holy shit, 

ya right

if you think that nitrogen will remain the same as it is converted to vapor from a natural state then you are very ill informed, all elements converted to one state to another change their composition, 

and ingestion is by no way smoking, haha 

you people would rather argue about which technique is better, seems actual science takes a basck seat to agenda, 

i still cant believe you sourced the tobbacco industry as proof to a heathly plant smoking properties if not flushed fucking eh


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 1, 2012)

I really don't know an answer to your question. can you explain it? 

but Im sure we can agree alot of "changes" occur when a bud is being smoked... going from solid to a gas. how can you be so certain its the nutrients that are causing that taste and not any number of other possibilites when it changes form?


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 1, 2012)

here's some information I've pulled up on fine cigars. Now I would think that a good cigar company is going to really take care of their crop for the end result. I even found an article on how they get different tastes in cigars. It's funny they mention nothing of nutrients just different types of tabacco. Check it out:

There are a number of steps or functions involved in creating a premium handmade cigar. Making, assembling or rolling the cigar is only one of them. Believe it or not, some cigar companies do not actually make cigars. If a company owns the trademark of a particular brand of cigars, then that company can hire or contract with an actual cigar maker to produce cigars for them, in lieu of making cigars themselves. To understand how the cigar industry works, we must take a look at some of the major steps required to turn a handful of cigar tobacco seeds into the finished cigar that you see for sale at your favorite cigar retailers.

*Grow and/or Buy Tobacco* 
To make a cigar, you first need some cigar tobacco. The cigar tobaccos used for the filler, binder and wrapper can be acquired or grown by a cigar company. Identifying and acquiring specific types of desirable tobacco on the open market is easier said than done. Since smaller cigar companies may not have the capital, expertise or even the desire to grow their own tobacco, buying from others is their most viable option. Many steps are required to grow tobacco, and even after the plants are grown and harvested, the tobacco must also be cured, fermented, aged and processed. However, larger cigar companies that want to control the quality and quantity of the tobacco used for their cigars may not only grow and process their own tobacco, but even develop and cultivate their own unique strains of seeds. A cigar company that grows and processes their own tobacco might also buy specific types of unique or desirable tobaccos from farmers and/or brokers, too. 
*Develop and Identify a Blend*
The next major step in making a cigar is to blend or combine various types tobaccos together into a cigar that not only tastes good, but burns well and possesses several other characteristics that are desired in premium handmade cigars. Blenders will experiment with a variety of different combinations of tobaccos until they identify a blend that works, at least according to their own personal requirements. The blend is the same thing as a formula or recipe. For example, use equal amounts of fillers C, F, H, and W with binder D and roll into wrapper X. Blending is a function that many cigar enthusiasts would like to do themselves, and is a main reason why owners of small cigar companies establish their own brands in the first place.
*Production*
Now, we have finally arrived at the step where a cigar is actually made. Most premium cigars are made by hand, by experienced cigar rollers in factories in the Caribbean or Central America. Cigars are also rolled by hand in small cigar shops all over the world. Many small cigar companies who own their own brand do not own their own factories (nor cigar shops), and must contract with others to make cigars for them (using the prescribed recipe or blend). Larger companies usually have their own cigar factories and make their own cigars, but they can contract with other cigar makers, also. After a cigar is finished, inspected and packaged, it must be stored and aged for a period of time before moving on to the final steps.

This one is just a simple managing tabacco guide: 


Mix fertilizer into your soil if you notice the leaves fading in color. Fertilizer will feed the plant and keep it looking green and healthy. Fertilizer is not always required, and should not be needed once the plant begins to flower. If you do fertilize, use a fertilizer designed specifically for tobacco, or for tomatoes, peppers or potatoes. These fertilizers are low in chlorine and high in nitrates.



2 Hoe or pull all weeds that are growing near your tobacco plants. Check regularly for weeds, as weeds will use up the nutrients that the tobacco plants need to thrive.



3 Supply the tobacco plant with between one and two inches of water each week. Tobacco is very sensitive to drought and under watering. Do not let the soil dry out in between watering sessions.



4 Check the plants for insect infestation each time you water. Tobacco is naturally insect repellant, but can see infestations by moths or caterpillars. Remove these by hand from the plant to prevent them from eating the leaves. Wear gloves if you are not comfortable touching the bugs directly.



5 Remove the top buds of the tobacco plant before they open by pulling them off or cutting them off with pruning shears. Removing these buds will allow for the leaves at the top of the plant to grow larger, producing a better tobacco crop.



6 Remove axillary suckers that form on the leaves after the buds are eliminated. Pull them off with your hands once they become about an inch in size so that they do not stunt leaf growth.

And finally here is an expirement done from a university using 4 different kinds of nitrogen, pottasium and other fertilizers to see what the differences in the end products were. It's actually a pretty cool study and goes fairly indepth yet still nothing on flushing to take chemicals out of the leaves and improve taste. here's the link: http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj15(7)11/5.pdf

Oh and my sources for the first two:
http://cigars.about.com/od/howcigarsaremade/a/Cigar-Makers-And-Cigar-Companies.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_5673825_manage-tobacco-plants.html
http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj15(7)11/5.pdf





​


----------



## IVIars (Jan 1, 2012)

I didn't read the whole thread, but has anyone seen the info from tobacco companies saying that calmag at the end would lead to a white ash when burned?

I am a flusher, but I'll try not flushing a plant or two and see how it goes


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 1, 2012)

No I haven't could you provide a link?


----------



## Rumple (Jan 1, 2012)

Very good topic. I am sure the proof from either side will be anecdotal at best. Yet, I will still flush.
I grow the same crop from the same clone and harvest every 70 to 80 days, for the past seven to eight years (with a few exceptions). 
A few times I forgot to flush and just chopped them down.. Here comes the anecdotal evidence... Right away I started getting comments from the wife that it taste like a medicine cabinet (no other comments about the ash or burning). When I asked a few others to give it a try I get the same reaction.
I harvest and cure the same way without exception, yet I get the same reaction everytime I forget to flush. I am told the high is the same, just the after taste is weird.

Could be my method of growing and the nutrients I use.
I use General Hydroponics Flora Series via the Lucas formula.
I grow in Bubble Buckets (DWC)
FYI: Lucas is a non-flusher (I think)


> Flushing is not necessary in DWC or EbbFlow, or any system that has a TDS below 1500 in the root zone.


I will keep flushing because it makes my wife happy.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jan 1, 2012)

i like this part of the study

"It seems that with increasing amount of nitrogen, fresh leaves weight and dry leaves weight increased but leaves quality decrease"

i like this qoute from that studdy at the bottom of your post, i swing for Quality's team any day over quantity


----------



## wbd (Jan 1, 2012)

Rumple said:


> I will keep flushing because it makes my wife happy.


Best reason yet.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 1, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i like this part of the study
> 
> "It seems that with increasing amount of nitrogen, fresh leaves weight and dry leaves weight increased but leaves quality decrease"
> 
> i like this qoute from that studdy at the bottom of your post, i swing for Quality's team any day over quantity


out of all of that, that's all you have? I was hoping for some information from you, atleast I tried to provide some. You were asking about the chemical change that happens and I don't know do you? if so please share 
and you didn't find it interesting that when making taste in cigars they mention nothing of nutrients?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jan 1, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> out of all of that, that's all you have? I was hoping for some information from you, atleast I tried to provide some. You were asking about the chemical change that happens and I don't know do you? if so please share and you didn't find it interesting that when making taste in cigars they mention nothing of nutrients?




why dont you actually read the studies in *your* post before using your child like sense of entitlement that screams do the work and thinking for me and well im not breaking down all the information in the source i quoted so you can have a more rounded understanding of things that you dont understand to begin with

-

and actually they mention a lot about nutrients and its suspected affects on the elemental composition of the final product, phosphorus and potassium are also mention wtf did you even read any of the cigar test info at the bottom of your post

http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj15(7)11/5.pdf


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 1, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> why dont you actually read the studies in *your* post before using your child like sense of entitlement that screams do the work and thinking for me and well im not breaking down all the information in the source i quoted so you can have a more rounded understanding of things that you dont understand to begin with
> 
> -
> 
> ...


*sigh* Is the hostility neccessary friend? I was just trying to have a conversation, I apologize if Im not a scientist (it seems everyone whos grown marijuana for a few years is, I always thought there was more to being a scientest than growing a couple plants) you came in and asked a very valid question which I welcome because that is what leads to truth. I respecfully admit I don't know the answer to your question probably because this isn't my field of study, I choose the business and financing route... Even after I admit I don't know the answer to your question you still refuse to explain or show any facts. I mean if you want to keep your secret knowledge to yourself then by all means please do but to come into the thread without reading it (I apologize if Im wrong but this was the impression I got) and start being hostil without providing any positive info doesn't really seem too productive to the conversation.

The funny thing is this thread was all started about pre-harvest flushing to improve TASTE. 

The part you pointed out I understand and found quit intersting myself! but it still doesn't say shit about improvement of taste which is what this thread is about.


----------



## Beansly (Jan 1, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i like this part of the study
> 
> "It seems that with increasing amount of nitrogen, fresh leaves weight and dry leaves weight increased but leaves quality decrease"
> 
> i like this qoute from that studdy at the bottom of your post, i swing for Quality's team any day over quantity


This is why I don't believe in keeping your plants green al the way till the end. The point of growing is the buds. By the end of flower the fan leaves should be yellow, and if timed just right, beginning to fall of the week you harvest. Were not growing to make pretty plants, were growing for fat buds.


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 1, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Very good topic. I am sure the proof from either side will be anecdotal at best. Yet, I will still flush.
> I grow the same crop from the same clone and harvest every 70 to 80 days, for the past seven to eight years (with a few exceptions).
> A few times I forgot to flush and just chopped them down.. Here comes the anecdotal evidence... Right away I started getting comments from the wife that it taste like a medicine cabinet (no other comments about the ash or burning). When I asked a few others to give it a try I get the same reaction.
> I harvest and cure the same way without exception, yet I get the same reaction everytime I forget to flush. I am told the high is the same, just the after taste is weird.
> ...




If you cared to read the thread you would see scientific proof.
I (and others) have posted scientifically valid and factual information from real studies and papers, made by real scientists.
It's not anecdotal at all...

YOUR "evidence" might be anecdotal and therefore pretty much useless to us, if you have any real proof or information, go ahead, post it.
But since I have seen you claiming shit before without any proof (even though you said you had authors and science backing you) I'm not surprised to see more bullshit coming from you.

It's the same old story, it's been "discussed" so many times in this thread alone and countless times in the H&C section alone.
This theory about chemmed-up bud is ridiculous and it's never been proven.

As said before, but I will repeat it again, drying & curing is in the end what determines how well the final product tastes, feels, looks etc.
Unless you have any real scientific proof, your words mean nothing.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]


Samwell Seed Well said:


> i like this part of the study
> 
> "It seems that with increasing amount of nitrogen, fresh leaves weight and dry leaves weight increased but leaves quality decrease"
> 
> i like this qoute from that studdy at the bottom of your post, i swing for Quality's team any day over quantity



First of all, how do you know if this equates to pre-harvest flushing?
You are grasping at straws.

And since when is that news and in any way helpful to the 'pre-harvest leaching (flushing)' discussion?
Overfeeding plants give you unwell plants which won't give you a product on par with properly fed plants.
This proves nothing about pre-harvest leaching. 
It proves nothing in this discussion.
If this is what you think of as 'hard' evidence that you're somehow right, then you are delusional.


I have not seen one pro pre-harvest leaching person post any scientifically valid information.
I have posted factual science studies, SirLance has.

All I see you guys doing is trying to turn around the meaning of what is posted by con pre-harvest leaching people, passing it off as your own, and claiming you have tons of proof.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.
The real discussion ended over 10 pages ago when Gas gave up replying to my posts..


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 1, 2012)

Beansly said:


> This is why I don't believe in keeping your plants green al the way till the end. The point of growing is the buds. By the end of flower the fan leaves should be yellow, and if timed just right, beginning to fall of the week you harvest. Were not growing to make pretty plants, were growing for fat buds.



i'd say a healthier plant would more likely produce fatter buds than a half dead scraggly plant.

as for the guy who forgot to flush ..... if he forgot to flush what else did he forget? was it really his best example i dunno, theres no way any of us can prove anything, not really what we're here to do, all i can talk about is what i've discovered, i just dont get how people can venomously vent their opinions at me in that fashion for offering MY opinion. you have your opinion, express it without attacking me, back it up with ur reasons and we might get close to a conversation


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 1, 2012)

went back to earlier discussions in the thread. theres a lot more and i mean a lot more actual information. i've actually managed to settle on a theory. overfeeding is the enemy with chemmed up bud, yes it does seem to exist !! its not solely down to a lack of flushing, just overfeeding. there was mention of, and studies to back up, that chems can be stored in all organs of the plant and up to 10x the sulfur content. sulfur is vile and would only require minimal amounts to affect taste overall.

this paints a possible picture of people feeding normal amounts to plants not flushing and having lovely fine bud and overfeeders producing chemmed up stuff. maybe why the people who stop flushing after a few grows dont seem to suffer from the chemmed up stuff, just experience. 

question is, how much flushing for how much overfeeding ?


----------



## Rumple (Jan 1, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> If you cared to read the thread you would see scientific proof.
> I (and others) have posted scientifically valid and factual information from real studies and papers, made by real scientists.
> It's not anecdotal at all...
> 
> ...


"sigh* Is the hostility necessary friend?" Are you able to just talk about stuff without being so serious? It's about time for you to change strains, buy one that will relax you.
I love the topic and I think the OP has a good point, but I see both sides lacking in proof that would sway the other side to change.
But you are correct, I did bring little to the conversation. 
Dude, it's just the internet, let it go.

SirLancelot, I am sorry I posted my wife's opinion here. Great subject, I'm glad you brought up the topic.
Peace, R.


----------



## sso (Jan 1, 2012)

i flushed once, havent done it again, dont see the point.


----------



## LIVE2GRO (Jan 1, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> It's just your post is so stupidly ridiculous it's unreal. Can tell the different phosphates by taste? That's total shite man. Iv liked/repped some of your posts before but that last one was ridiculous. "People can taste that shit", the people taste the shit coming off that post.
> 
> Happy new years and all but a good dry and cure on good genetics is what it takes for any strain/feed method. I can't taste the difference between the plants I fed PK13/14 and didn't feed (but the PK13/14 plants are a bit bigger!).
> Come on man, people can taste the difference between boosters? Bullshit talk!


actually i have a buddy who can tell the difference between my fox farm buds and my bio canna buds.. and even the coco canna a and b buds.. i did a taste test .. were i knew what they were and he didnt.. and then i also bought 3 different types of buds from a friend n he told me wat they were grown with .. and if boost was used on the canna and if the solubles were used on fox farm.. people that know what to look for can deff tell.. the only thing that screwed my friend up was the 1 plant that i fed with foxfarms and bio canna every other feed the opposite 1.. but he did say who ever grew it mixed a bunch of different things hahahh . the kid runs a hydro shop in a med state so i think he can tell .. he proved me wrong. so thats good enough for me ..


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 1, 2012)

LIVE2GRO said:


> actually i have a buddy who can tell the difference between my fox farm buds and my bio canna buds.. and even the coco canna a and b buds.. i did a taste test .. were i knew what they were and he didnt.. and then i also bought 3 different types of buds from a friend n he told me wat they were grown with .. and if boost was used on the canna and if the solubles were used on fox farm.. people that know what to look for can deff tell.. the only thing that screwed my friend up was the 1 plant that i fed with foxfarms and bio canna every other feed the opposite 1.. but he did say who ever grew it mixed a bunch of different things hahahh . the kid runs a hydro shop in a med state so i think he can tell .. he proved me wrong. so thats good enough for me ..


So pray, do tell, what's the difference between Canna and Fox Farm chemically?


----------



## skunkd0c (Jan 1, 2012)

34 pages of worthless finicky drivel 
1 or 2 weeks of flushing or not flushing makes such little difference


----------



## OldGrowAddict (Jan 1, 2012)

Fact: Even if a plant has been correctly flushed, the resulting smoke can still be shitty burning and tasting. What does this mean? From a science perspective, this means flushing is a myth - because the method tested only have to fail once to prove there HAS TO BE other variables as to why the resulting pot burns and taste like shit. Any new theory has to work every time, scientificly. IMHO, there are too many variables - WHY does a lot of non-flushed pot taste and burn wonderful? I guess everything is a variable (enviroment, light, temps, nutrients etc), but mostly drying and curing.


----------



## Beansly (Jan 2, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> So pray, do tell, what's the difference between Canna and Fox Farm chemically?


If there's a difference, it's probably in the source of the K in the bloom bottles/boosters. 
I love arrogant people like yourself hat think that just because YOU can't do something it's impossible that anyone else can....
This isn't fucking Ireland..... the grow scene here is very sophisticated with a lot of people I know growing for 50+ years. Whether they call themselves it or not, after a certain amount of time, these people become pros, whether they're know on the internet or not (and most of the avoid the internet like the plague).
My 'buddy', as you guys say to demean his status, has been growing since before Canna, General Hydroponics, Advanced Nutrients and all the canna specific nutrient lines. When he can rattle off the typeds of nutes used and whether it was growing indoor or outdoor, hydro or organic, K source and all, I tend to believe him. Foolish me...



VanishingToaster said:


> i'd say a healthier plant would more likely produce fatter buds than a half dead scraggly plant.


Who said anything about a half-dead scraggly plant?
I don't think there's anything more beautiful than a healthily yellowing plant at the end of flower. If your plant is half dead and scraggly then I'd say you probably don't know what you're doing. Why do you think that late flower fertilizers have nearly no N at all. It's cause for our purposes, the plant doesn't need it. Your plant can be healthy and yellow.... lmao


























If you want to re-veg your plant then MAYBE you'd want to keep it green the whole time, but otherwise i don't think so.


----------



## LIVE2GRO (Jan 2, 2012)

well put it this way the kid im talking about.. works at a hydro store... .. and he said the fox farms leaves a weird taste... .. canna has a nice kinda sweeter taste wen boost is used.. without boost its not as sweet.. i like both it doesnt really matter to me but i notice my plants stay a hell fo a lot greener threw the grow with canna.


----------



## sso (Jan 2, 2012)

OldGrowAddict said:


> Fact: Even if a plant has been correctly flushed, the resulting smoke can still be shitty burning and tasting. What does this mean? From a science perspective, this means flushing is a myth - because the method tested only have to fail once to prove there HAS TO BE other variables as to why the resulting pot burns and taste like shit. Any new theory has to work every time, scientificly. IMHO, there are too many variables - WHY does a lot of non-flushed pot taste and burn wonderful? I guess everything is a variable (enviroment, light, temps, nutrients etc), but mostly drying and curing.



well, the main difference ive noticed between plants, is that more sativa plants, have more smokable leaves.

indica leaves are more harsh.

some indica plants are more suited for making hash, than anything (make ya cough like crazy (even smoking pure bud with no leaves) (and thats organic growing)

while my pure sativa has leaves that are fine for smoking (great taste..)

and the most sativa hybrid has much more palatable leaves than the next hybrid (50/50) which again is better tasting than the more indicas or pure ones.


this pretty much seems to be a rule so far that i see.

..though it would be difficult to state this as fact, considering the wide number of hybrids and strains out there along with the whole legal issue and difficulty in testing.


----------



## Mr.Marijuana420 (Jan 2, 2012)

there are ppl that follow whats writtin in books, and there are ppl that use the books as a basic guidline, and tweek and experiment along the way. the ones who experiment with new ideas are the ones who prevail as a better grower because theyve gone through the motions of learning whats best. if everyone did there grow according to the book, we'd still be growing pot like they did in the sixties. so ultimatley the ppl who are gonna keep growin off the book and are too scared to try somethin new are missing out, what every one who questioned the truth in this post should do, is finish some plants with a flush some without, dont do what other ppl do, find what u do


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 2, 2012)

Rumple said:


> "sigh* Is the hostility necessary friend?" Are you able to just talk about stuff without being so serious? It's about time for you to change strains, buy one that will relax you.
> I love the topic and I think the OP has a good point, but I see both sides lacking in proof that would sway the other side to change.
> But you are correct, I did bring little to the conversation.
> Dude, it's just the internet, let it go.
> ...


no worries my friend, I appreciate all positive input to the conversation. and you've done this expirement for youself and have your own results which I respect. Unlike others I welcome facts from both sides as Im trying to get to the main point not argue with an agenda of where I want to stand on the topic. 

Haha I hear ya on the wifey, mine usually has somewhat of a say when I grow lol, gotta keep her happy so she can let me keep my room she wants to turn to a storage room lol!!


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 2, 2012)

Beansly said:


> If there's a difference, it's probably in the source of the K in the bloom bottles/boosters.
> I love arrogant people like yourself hat think that just because YOU can't do something it's impossible that anyone else can....
> This isn't fucking Ireland..... the grow scene here is very sophisticated with a lot of people I know growing for 50+ years. Whether they call themselves it or not, after a certain amount of time, these people become pros, whether they're know on the internet or not (and most of the avoid the internet like the plague).
> My 'buddy', as you guys say to demean his status, has been growing since before Canna, General Hydroponics, Advanced Nutrients and all the canna specific nutrient lines. When he can rattle off the typeds of nutes used and whether it was growing indoor or outdoor, hydro or organic, K source and all, I tend to believe him. Foolish me...
> ...


Im going out on a limb to say your an example of when you grow bomb as nug regardless if you flush or not and do it properly you get bomb as nug! your plants look healthier than many other plants I've seen flushed.

Your right the plant does need less N in flowering just like my chilis, tomatoes, cucumbers and many other plants. But growing up gardening with my mother and /gma we always made sure our veggies and fruits were nice a green during fruiting, I understand this is a different plant but I feel similar in areas. I don't know if fruits/veggies would taste any better/worse If i left the leaves to yellow out and not give them a N boost late in flowering, I just don't know if i can attribute just Nitrogen levels in a plant to a specific taste as someone pointed out theres too many other variables. Once you (not you specifically beansly, but the readers) grow a few and try what works best for you then you will get what you want out of your buds your growing. Im sure I do some unorthodox methods to my plants that others would deem "insane" yet I've found these to work better for me than other methods. Yet I have a friend who's style of growing is a little more different than mine Im always asking "what did you do that for?" but at the end of the day we both are smokin good nugs... 

A horse a piece...


----------



## sso (Jan 2, 2012)

its not the fanleaves that are important, they usually die off unless you feed it too much N.

my plants dont have any fanleaves left when they are done. just buds (all buds alive and well, though many sugar leaves have begun to die off at the end (basically its a sticky sugary mess left (healthy buds though)

but i find that you can reveg even at this point, its enough that the buds are well. (its from them the plant regenerates its new leaves)


----------



## IVIars (Jan 2, 2012)

I can't post the link from my phone. Look up a north Carolina flue-cure study


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 3, 2012)

Rumple said:


> "sigh* Is the hostility necessary friend?" Are you able to just talk about stuff without being so serious? It's about time for you to change strains, buy one that will relax you.
> I love the topic and I think the OP has a good point, but I see both sides lacking in proof that would sway the other side to change.
> But you are correct, I did bring little to the conversation.
> Dude, it's just the internet, let it go.
> ...



I see you just stole SirLance's first sentence reply to samwell..

First of all, I'm not your friend, and I never will be as long as you continue to spread wrong information and as long as you won't admit that you are wrong.
I will keep letting people know that you are a deceiver, that your information cannot be trusted and that on top of that, you are so arrogant that you won't listen to reason and logic, not even if it's accompanied by scientifically valid information.

Oh it's a questions of lacking information?
Why don't you care to read the scientific information I posted? I have posted real studies made by scientists..

How is "it's just the internet" a proper argument?
You are still spreading wrong information and complaining to admins when you don't get your way, I have absolutely zero respect for you, and I see that most other experienced growers don't have any respect for you either.
This must stem from your pathological need to always be right, no matter how wrong you are.
You just can't listen to reason, and you keep deflecting, changing topic, talking about stuff that has no validity to the real discussion.


----------



## wbd (Jan 3, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> I see you just stole SirLance's first sentence reply to samwell..
> 
> First of all, I'm not your friend, and I never will be as long as you continue to spread wrong information and as long as you won't admit that you are wrong.
> I will keep letting people know that you are a deceiver, that your information cannot be trusted and that on top of that, you are so arrogant that you won't listen to reason and logic, not even if it's accompanied by scientifically valid information.
> ...


Wow, lame personal attacks aside...

35 pages later and all of the science, measuring of post counts and grow experience, pictures which prove nothing, etc., not one person has been able to provide compelling evidence that flushing helps or hurts final product.

I mean, isn't that what everyone reading this wants to know -- should they flush or not? 

All that science and the question remains unanswered.


----------



## wbd (Jan 3, 2012)

Rumple said:


> but I see both sides lacking in proof that would sway the other side to change.


Yup, I see the exact same thing. 35 pages of inconclusive science and taste tests, plenty of namecalling, and that's about it.


----------



## wbd (Jan 3, 2012)

Arrogance or closed-mindedness from either side of this debate is a bit premature at this point.


----------



## Rumple (Jan 3, 2012)

Wow, that guy is real mad about this. Ok K0iijn.. I am wrong and you are very correct. I am so sorry for being wrong (happens now and then). Anyone else want to get mad at me for not agreeing with them? How can I be wrong without making folks upset? I can put a disclaimer in my sig or something cool like that.

I just don't want to be mad or make other mad. I want to chill here and rap with fellow growers about opinions and ideas. It's cool if you don't agree with me, we are still growing gods herb on the same earth together. Anyway we can have a friendly chat?


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 3, 2012)

rocknratm said:


> Im am fucking sick of these arguments. There are legit reasons a flush would be necessary, and excess (usually alot of it) can cause chemically tasting weed. I just got the grow bible by cervantes to go along with my one by green (both great).
> "how to tell when fertilizer will affect taste:
> 1. leaf tips and fringes are burnt
> 2. leaves are brittle at harvest
> ...


you do realise that cervantes i on about OVER FEEDING? Not plants that were not flushed


----------



## big fatjoint (Jan 3, 2012)

Ok here is my shot at this topic I don't post allot but have been at this racket long enough to learn a couple of things along the way. I thought reading this thread would sway me one way or the other but it has not! I have however came to a conclusion on what I think is best and I have to say it is a bit from both sides of the debate!

Ok let me explain how I came to what I think I will try to remember most of my points that brought me to this conclusion!

I have done my own experiments long before this thread was posted I have flushed and ferted right to the end!
I think the arguement about flushing vs nonflush soil vs chem is all bullshit!

Reasoning= soil plants start with high levels of food or good soil but as life progresses the plant eats the food naturally leaching the soil towards harvest witch = best tasting buds!

So what I have learned is if you look at mother nature for the example and how fert levels drop towards the finish date!

Now I am not claiming to know everything this is just what I have came up with listening and reading and experimenting for years!

I think chem or orgainc it doesn't mater the only thing that matters is you start week on food and end week on food call it what ever you want but this will make the best tasting buds period!

The answer is as easy as planting a baby outside in good soil and watch what mother nature tells us! Plants grown organic outside do not have bright green leaves at harvest time they autum off and turn yellow the leftover nitrogen in the leaves migrate to the buds to maintain flower health which reduces total nitrogen in the plant!
The same goes for P and K as the plant eats it the levels naturally decline towards the finish!

So call it what you will but the main concern is to keep the plant healthy throughout the grow and reducing levels towards the end weather you call it flushing or noflushing this is what you want to mimik for quality tasting nugs!

I think the biggest reason we can't come to a agreement is because we have to lable everything just look at mother nature for you answers she has been doing this longer than every individual in this thread and I believe what she teaches me over what I have read in a book or on the internet!!!!!!

In the end we all just want beautiful nugs so keep up the good fight everyone and enjoy the plant we all love at least we can all agree we love this plant and we are all here for the same reason!!!!!!!


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 3, 2012)

Very educated post big fat joint


----------



## Mr.Therapy Man 2 (Jan 3, 2012)

All I can say is Im glad Im not smokeing your weed because you can bet your ass that it burns the shit out of your nose and just dont taste as nice as my flushed weed.I only flush about 7 days give or take a day or two.I think you start these threads to argue about stuff you know very little about what the fuck your talking about.Some newbie on here will read this bullshit and not flush either and his weed will make you cough and your nose burn like hell when you hit it


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 3, 2012)

The OP was not argueing. Just stating theres no proof that flushing is benifitial. Maybe you should not overfeed your cannabis towards the end of it life cycle. Thats quite a statment buddy.


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 3, 2012)

wbd said:


> Wow, lame personal attacks aside...
> 
> 35 pages later and all of the science, measuring of post counts and grow experience, pictures which prove nothing, etc., not one person has been able to provide compelling evidence that flushing helps or hurts final product.
> 
> ...



Not at all a personal attack, stating the facts more like it.
People should stop posting crap, how hard is it to be truthful with what you post?
People lie all the time, thats fair, but if you're trying to help people and perhaps even educate them on Cannabis growing, at least don't lie then. That'll give you no respect and no credit at all.


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, 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 / leaching state, is that pre-harvest flushing has not been proved 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.
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 back, no factual informational backup.
This is why I post these studies, why I try to show people the facts.


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.
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.
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.







P.S. I realize I have repeated myself somewhat, from older posts in this thread, but I felt it necessary to get the point(s) across.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 3, 2012)

OldGrowAddict said:


> Fact: Even if a plant has been correctly flushed, the resulting smoke can still be shitty burning and tasting. What does this mean? From a science perspective, this means flushing is a myth - because the method tested only have to fail once to prove there HAS TO BE other variables as to why the resulting pot burns and taste like shit. Any new theory has to work every time, scientificly. IMHO, there are too many variables - WHY does a lot of non-flushed pot taste and burn wonderful? I guess everything is a variable (enviroment, light, temps, nutrients etc), but mostly drying and curing.


Pretty much sealed it up for me.


----------



## wbd (Jan 3, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> You cause deficiency, which leads to (if we are to believe science) decreased productivity.


There's no practical evidence of this, or if there is then somebody is holding out on me because I've asked for it 100 times (ignoring the guy that tripled his yield when he stopped flushing, obviously). You yourself have stated several times "no difference", presumably that is in both yield and in taste/smoke. My own experience is the same, and is the best conclusion that can be derived from this thread.

"No difference" is hardly compelling in either direction.

But I can't argue with your beef about bullshit reasons behind why some people think flushing is the way to go. I think the science clearly falls short of any reason why flushing could possibly benefit taste or smoke, so you and others are absolutely correct about this.

Then again, it's unreasonable to ignore the significant population that believes pre-harvest flushing is beneficial, those that claim they can taste the difference. I never experienced this for myself, but it's not fair to discount this opinion as it's been stated by too many folks in to varying of a farmer's demographic. It deserves consideration. Maybe there's some other reason why pre-harvest flushing happens to work under some conditions, who knows...

The debate continues.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 3, 2012)

the guy that tripled his yield was growing 12/12 from seed!! he said so himself. given that technique a could easily believe it went from a half oz to one and a half. folk seem to be ripping him and only showing their own ignorance.

his results aren't however proof of flushing benefiting the final product, but it is very niche to 12/12 from seed.


----------



## wbd (Jan 3, 2012)

VanishingToaster said:


> the guy that tripled his yield was growing 12/12 from seed!! he said so himself. given that technique a could easily believe it went from a half oz to one and a half. folk seem to be ripping him and only showing their own ignorance.
> 
> his results aren't however proof of flushing benefiting the final product, but it is very niche to 12/12 from seed.


What, are you guys BFF or something? Second time you come to his rescue. Cute. 

This is what he said:



> I stopped flushing and tripled my yield now im a believer in back off the nutrients that last week or two of flower flushing is reserved for fuck up like over nuteing and by backing off i mean real slowly and i feed up until chop and i like to end up feeding them what i started with so like 1/4 recommended dosage.


How am I showing ignorance exactly? It's what he said...


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 3, 2012)

wbd said:


> There's no practical evidence of this, or if there is then somebody is holding out on me because I've asked for it 100 times (ignoring the guy that tripled his yield when he stopped flushing, obviously). You yourself have stated several times "no difference", presumably that is in both yield and in taste/smoke. My own experience is the same, and is the best conclusion that can be derived from this thread.
> 
> "No difference" is hardly compelling in either direction.
> 
> ...



Again, if you read the study I posted and look at the image I linked you will see quite clearly that strength of the nutrient solution and thus how many nutrients are available directly affect yield.
If you have a deficiency, yield is decreased. If you have a ~critical amount, yield is close to 90%-100% and if you have abundance, you are around 100% but the nutrient storage levels go steeply up (nutrients are wasted and plant is overfed).

Yes I have stated no difference, I also mentioned that in the post you replied on:



> We might even be receiving higher yields (which none of us have recorded however) if the study is to be correct (nutrient levels in the plant greatly affect yield.


The issue is not about no difference, it's about pre-harvest flushers claiming pre-harvest flushing can also increase yield, amongst other things.
All I did was look at the study and it clearly shows that nutrient levels are highly important to final yield (and thus productivity of a plant).
This rings true for any plant, be that ryegrass or cannabis.

I think it is fair to discount the opinions of those who claim better taste, odour, less harsh, cleaner ash.
First of all because I don't hear this argument from many experienced growers, normally it's heard from unexperienced growers.
It's also used a lot by people who have never done side by side flush - no flush experiments.
I think most of the people who claim these taste and odour improvements are just kicking a dead horse.
They're passing on old information that was told to them by someone they trust and like, they have believed it for a long time, and when popular authors also mention it, it almost becomes gospel to them, without any reasoning or logical thinking on their part.


----------



## midijunkie (Jan 3, 2012)

flush. you must flush. MUST. psh.. what do i know. hahaha


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 3, 2012)

midijunkie said:


> flush. you must flush. MUST. psh.. what do i know. hahaha


Great argument!


----------



## spagettiheady420 (Jan 3, 2012)

hey wht nutes do you use/ at the end how high are your ppm before you kut, since you dont flush....just curious im not down to argue


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 4, 2012)

wbd said:


> What, are you guys BFF or something? Second time you come to his rescue. Cute.
> 
> This is what he said:
> 
> ...


fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck meeeeeee! you my good man have faaaar too much time on your hands. couldn't even tell you the guys screenie, just remembered it cause all the theory was there but the wrong conclusion, the fact that everyone ripping him hasn't added the 2 + 2 to get the correct conclusion is what my meant by showing your own ignorance.

theres a lot of better things to do in this expansive beautiful world, i really think you'd benefit by going for a walk, take a book, find somewhere nice to sit, really give it a try. Might not be the most productive way to spend an afternoon, some would say its a waste of time, but you know what i say to them ??? i say its better than sitting around counting forum post creating fictional relationships then throwing completely off topic digs at people for these imaginary relationships you've created. i mean what does it have to do with the thread??? why bother??? do u think that little digs will somehow add validity to the point you made? which i'm looking for but can't actually see.

now i know i'm being hypocritical, i can be a bit like that, cause here i am wasting MY time on YOU! what a little troll you are


----------



## wbd (Jan 4, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> Again, if you read the study I posted and look at the image I linked you will see quite clearly that strength of the nutrient solution and thus how many nutrients are available directly affect yield.
> If you have a deficiency, yield is decreased. If you have a ~critical amount, yield is close to 90%-100% and if you have abundance, you are around 100% but the nutrient storage levels go steeply up (nutrients are wasted and plant is overfed).


I read it, it's all very much common sense yet still inconclusive in this context. We're talking about a brief period of deficiency in the final stages of a flowering plant that is not ryegrass. A study analyzing yield of cannabis flushed versus nonflushed would be more appropriate yet doesn't exist, or if it doesn't did not provide compelling evidence of loss of yield in the flushed group. If the productivity loss was that substantial you wouldn't even need a formal study, it's not like cannabis growers aren't weighing their final products. Growers would notice, yet we can't get anyone to step up and make the claim -- yourself included. Theory is just theory.



k0ijn said:


> The issue is not about no difference, it's about pre-harvest flushers claiming pre-harvest flushing can also increase yield, amongst other things.


Haven't seen that claim even once yet. Not saying someone did say it, but it's safe we can all disregard the guy that says flushing increases yield. I don't need a chart to quickly dismiss that one. Not sure why you would even spend any of your valuable time defending such a silly claim.


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 4, 2012)

We have some great discussion going on here guys, let's keep the posts relevant to the topic and avoid personal attacks and flaming.


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 4, 2012)

wbd said:


> I read it, it's all very much common sense yet still inconclusive in this context. We're talking about a brief period of deficiency in the final stages of a flowering plant that is not ryegrass. A study analyzing yield of cannabis flushed versus nonflushed would be more appropriate yet doesn't exist, or if it doesn't did not provide compelling evidence of loss of yield in the flushed group. If the productivity loss was that substantial you wouldn't even need a formal study, it's not like cannabis growers aren't weighing their final products. Growers would notice, yet we can't get anyone to step up and make the claim -- yourself included. Theory is just theory.
> 
> 
> Haven't seen that claim even once yet. Not saying someone did say it, but it's safe we can all disregard the guy that says flushing increases yield. I don't need a chart to quickly dismiss that one. Not sure why you would even spend any of your valuable time defending such a silly claim.



I'll have to disagree with you.
I don't quite see it as inconclusive. In most cases of pre-harvest flushing we're not talking about a brief period of deficiency.
Deficiency can set in within 1-2 days, as nutrient are used up rather quickly if not in abundance (which most growers aren't doing anyway (feeding abundance of nutes that is)).
This means that most pre-harvest flushers actually starve their plants for at least 1 week if not 2 weeks.
That is quite a long time in my book. Especially if you take into account that the plants are being starved in the most critical phase of growing, where critical productivity is required and the plant undergoes huge changes (calyxes increase, weight increases etc.).
Even though the study is on ryegrass doesn't mean the basic chemical reactions and the way nutrients are stored aren't the same.
The phloem, xylem and cambium are alike for many plants and the function(s) of this tissue is the same across species and genus.
It's universal biology, the tissue moves around sugars and amino acids in the plant and xylem is key in water transportation throughout plants.
Thus we can extract the theories spoken of in the study I linked and use them on cannabis plants as well, especially the crucial part about nutrient storage, which is the crux of the discussion about pre-harvest flushing.

I agree that a scientific study on flushed versus unflushed cannabis would be more helpful, and more specific, but to simply put aside other valid studies just because they are done on other plants, is wrong.
Plants all have the same basic tissue, and that includes everything from ryegrass to cannabis.
No I would not claim anything I don't know, which is why I'm not stating outright that productivity is lost when you have deficiency in cannabis plants.
However, the studies made on other plants suggests that productivity and yield does take a hit when you cause deficiency.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing was true of cannabis.


I have seen that claim many times, you can look in the H&C section, a topic on flushing is posted every day almost, and this has been discussed many times before, not in the depth I'm going to now though.
But I would not disregard what people say about yield when it comes to flushing, since I find the claims of improved taste, odour, harshness, ash etc. just as ludicrous as improved yield. I don't discriminate between claims, I seek to disprove them all.


----------



## LT1RX7 Drifter (Jan 4, 2012)

hey i got a noble idea how bout we starve you the last week your alive, flushing does not increase yeild, or taste, or appearence, or how it burns down to ash or not. It has been scientifically proven on countless different spieces of consumer driven crops, fertilizing will increase yeild . IF the grow was done correctly and you feed till harvest, ie trichome color, you finished product will only be as good as the dry and cure and genetics period.


----------



## Mr.Marijuana420 (Jan 4, 2012)

[/QUOTE]I think it is fair to discount the opinions of those who claim better taste, odour, less harsh, cleaner ash.
First of all because I don't hear this argument from many experienced growers, normally it's heard from unexperienced growers.
It's also used a lot by people who have never done side by side flush - no flush experiments.
I think most of the people who claim these taste and odour improvements are just kicking a dead horse.
They're passing on old information that was told to them by someone they trust and like, they have believed it for a long time, and when popular authors also mention it, it almost becomes gospel to them, without any reasoning or logical thinking on their part.[/QUOTE]

100% true. this is because experienced growers know there methods and arent caught up in prooving that there way is the only rite way. for some reason with all the lack of knowledge inexperienced growers have, they seem to be the least open to new ideas. theres plenty of ways to grow this plant


----------



## wbd (Jan 4, 2012)

LT1RX7 Drifter said:


> hey i got a noble idea how bout we starve you the last week your alive, flushing does not increase yeild, or taste, or appearence, or how it burns down to ash or not. It has been scientifically proven on countless different spieces of consumer driven crops, fertilizing will increase yeild . IF the grow was done correctly and you feed till harvest, ie trichome color, you finished product will only be as good as the dry and cure and genetics period.


Yet still no studies presented demonstrating flushed bud is in any way inferior to unflushed.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 4, 2012)

wbd said:


> Yet still no studies presented demonstrating flushed bud is in any way inferior to unflushed.


which is exactly my point. why even flush to begin with, when there has been no proof it does anything.


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 4, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> which is exactly my point. why even flush to begin with, when there has been no proof it does anything.



This is one of our main points yes.
Why go through the hassle of pre-harvest flushing, getting new water, replacing water (getting rid of the old solution), running it through the system, re-pH'ing etc (which can be a genuine hassle if you have a medium sized grow or larger) if it doesn't improve your grow in any way?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 4, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> This is one of our main points yes.
> Why go through the hassle of pre-harvest flushing, getting new water, replacing water (getting rid of the old solution), running it through the system, re-pH'ing etc (which can be a genuine hassle if you have a medium sized grow or larger) if it doesn't improve your grow in any way?


AND the toilet growers pH adjust their toilet water...and they don't seem to realise the reason we pH adjust water to assist in nutrient uptake...yep thats right, the people who flush make their "flush the nutrients out" water so it helps the plants take up nutrients! What a world we live in.


----------



## ThrobbingPancake (Jan 4, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> When a living organism doesn't get the nutrients or food it needs to sustain itself it starts eating off of it's stored nutrents/food. That is starving and that is what the plant is doing. You can make it sound special it's just eating whats left in the plant NO it's eating itself. C'mon man get an understanding in Botany then argue.




You said that you have a basic understanding of botany, but now you are beginning to assert yourself as "all knowing." It is in your opinion that flushing is dumb. Other people feel that NOT flushing is dumb. I feel that you may be a bit misinformed, or possibly were sick the day your high school teacher was discussing the finer points of photosynthesis. Furthermore, if the plant freaks out because it's not getting the nutes it's used to, it starts pumping what's left into the buds. Kinda like what adrenaline does for us humans, gives us the added strength or endurance in times of need. But be careful, if you listen closely, you can hear the plant screaming. 

I have an orchid, it's 4 years old, and I have never once given it any nutrients, distilled water all the way. It flowers regularly, without added nutrients. It's funny, the only thing I was searching for on the interweb was flushing, or not flushing. I stumbled onto this website, and really, the only reason I registered was because SirLancelot here was contradicting himself left and right, and it really got under my skin. I will frequent these pages more now. So, SirLancelot, thank you for your unnecessary and uninformed ramblings. Without these I would not have found this site, but you do make me feel better about my abilities as a writer. 

-CheerS-

TP


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 5, 2012)

ThrobbingPancake said:


> You said that you have a basic understanding of botany, but now you are beginning to assert yourself as "all knowing." It is in your opinion that flushing is dumb. Other people feel that NOT flushing is dumb. I feel that you may be a bit misinformed, or possibly were sick the day your high school teacher was discussing the finer points of photosynthesis. Furthermore, if the plant freaks out because it's not getting the nutes it's used to, it starts pumping what's left into the buds. Kinda like what adrenaline does for us humans, gives us the added strength or endurance in times of need. But be careful, if you listen closely, you can hear the plant screaming.
> 
> I have an orchid, it's 4 years old, and I have never once given it any nutrients, distilled water all the way. It flowers regularly, without added nutrients. It's funny, the only thing I was searching for on the interweb was flushing, or not flushing. I stumbled onto this website, and really, the only reason I registered was because SirLancelot here was contradicting himself left and right, and it really got under my skin. I will frequent these pages more now. So, SirLancelot, thank you for your unnecessary and uninformed ramblings. Without these I would not have found this site, but you do make me feel better about my abilities as a writer.
> 
> ...




HA one post? join date jan 2012..... fucking hell, the lengths trolls will go to, to try and get "one up" on someone. like it matters


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 5, 2012)

VanishingToaster said:


> aaah as a non flusher i do feel i should point out that flushing is useful for correcting mistakes in the grow medium.....thats about it but it does do things, and IF you have overfed its probably a good idea to at least reduce feedings last week or so


I completely agree with you.
As I've already stated many times, flushing / leaching is good for error correction, clearing salt buildup etc.
Almost all growers flush, mainly due to errors.

What SirLance ment (I think) was more about pre-harvest flushing / leaching.
Although, I can see he didn't specify properly.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 5, 2012)

sounds like we're almost at a conclusion, shame its one thats gonna be different for everyone but thats growing for ya, general to everyone but unique for all


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 5, 2012)

ThrobbingPancake said:


> You said that you have a basic understanding of botany, but now you are beginning to assert yourself as "all knowing." It is in your opinion that flushing is dumb. Other people feel that NOT flushing is dumb. I feel that you may be a bit misinformed, or possibly were sick the day your high school teacher was discussing the finer points of photosynthesis. Furthermore, if the plant freaks out because it's not getting the nutes it's used to, it starts pumping what's left into the buds. Kinda like what adrenaline does for us humans, gives us the added strength or endurance in times of need. But be careful, if you listen closely, you can hear the plant screaming.
> 
> I have an orchid, it's 4 years old, and I have never once given it any nutrients, distilled water all the way. It flowers regularly, without added nutrients. It's funny, the only thing I was searching for on the interweb was flushing, or not flushing. I stumbled onto this website, and really, the only reason I registered was because SirLancelot here was contradicting himself left and right, and it really got under my skin. I will frequent these pages more now. So, SirLancelot, thank you for your unnecessary and uninformed ramblings. Without these I would not have found this site, but you do make me feel better about my abilities as a writer.
> 
> ...


Your quite welcome, Maybe I should repost something for you since you didn't take the time to read before writing. Im also a bit confused on the photosynthesis lesson your giving me, I feel I have a good understanding of how it works and yes i understand the plant uses up the nutrients in the leaves which go to the buds, did I ever say they didn't? Im confused on your argument here, are you just upset that Im voicing my opinion? 



SirLancelot said:


> I never claimed to be a scientist.
> I never claimed to be an expert.
> I never claimed to have any credible facts to my theorys
> I have done lots of studying and if you took the time to read the thread you would see a shit ton of those facts that you want.
> ...


and what does an orchid have to do with flushing? 




k0ijn said:


> I completely agree with you.
> As I've already stated many times, flushing / leaching is good for error correction, clearing salt buildup etc.
> Almost all growers flush, mainly due to errors.
> 
> ...


yes exactly, I sometimes assume people know what im writing without proper clarification only because I thought I've/we've made it clear the topic is about Pre-harvest flushing for improved taste.

P.S ThrobbingPancake I wanted to tell you Im proud to be your first but don't go psycho and get all attached it's just a 'thing' ok.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 5, 2012)

with the studies posted earlier showing that plants in general do store crap in all parts of the plant, its fair to assume that chemmed up bud comes from overfeeding and not flushing, whereas properly fed non flushed plants shouldn't have an excess.

the amount of people saying that they've smoked flushed and non flushed and not been able to tell makes me think that if there is a difference between properly fed and flushed its minimal if at all. only proof i have is the opinions of everyone here, granted not scientific, but this forum will never make my mind up on a subject, i need to see the proof in my own grows before i take something as gospol


----------



## wbd (Jan 5, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> which is exactly my point. why even flush to begin with, when there has been no proof it does anything.


I happen to agree with you 100% (and k0ijn) on this, and it's why I don't flush.

But if we're having a discussion that involves rejecting theories about flushing that have zero practical merit, then let's make sure to reject the idea that pre-harvest flushing harms your plants (ex: "starving"). It's backed by good science and common sense even, yet cannot be demonstrated.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 5, 2012)

wbd said:


> I happen to agree with you 100% (and k0ijn) on this, and it's why I don't flush.
> 
> But if we're having a discussion that involves rejecting theories about flushing that have zero practical merit, then let's make sure to reject the idea that pre-harvest flushing harms your plants (ex: "starving"). It's backed by good science and common sense even, yet cannot be demonstrated.


thought it had been agreed that flushing helped with salt buildup and to clear out and over fed plant, which isn't starving it, just letting it eat what excessively stored. i'm not saying if u dont flush = instant chemmed up bud, but if u've overfed badly, ur gonna taste shit in the bud if its not been dealt with


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 5, 2012)

wbd said:


> I happen to agree with you 100% (and k0ijn) on this, and it's why I don't flush.
> 
> But if we're having a discussion that involves rejecting theories about flushing that have zero practical merit, then let's make sure to reject the idea that pre-harvest flushing harms your plants (ex: "starving"). It's backed by good science and common sense even, yet cannot be demonstrated.




I'm not agreeing on pre-harvest flushing not harming your plants.
I myself have said that I think it might lower productivity, since I believe the same conditions as for ryegrass on nutrient storage are applicable for cannabis and therefor I believe that giving your plants deficiency will lower potential yield.
I don't see where (the fact that causing deficiency isn't harmful) this is backed by good science or common sense either.


----------



## donmagicjuan (Jan 5, 2012)

weed plants are like sponges. do you rinse your sponge before you put it out on the counter or do you leave egg batter and cheese sauce crustys on it before putting it on the counter. i watch as leaves perk up after absorbing a watering. plants draw that shit in. if theres chems in it they will be drawn in. why would you not give plain water right before harvest. for at least a couple feedings not some extreme starving but at least so its not straight up chem water in ur bud right before you chop it. if its full grown u wont lose weight. i hate u trolls whos nute filled bud sparks like a sparkler


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> weed plants are like sponges. do you rinse your sponge before you put it out on the counter or do you leave egg batter and cheese sauce crustys on it before putting it on the counter. i watch as leaves perk up after absorbing a watering. plants draw that shit in. if theres chems in it they will be drawn in. why would you not give plain water right before harvest. for at least a couple feedings not some extreme starving but at least so its not straight up chem water in ur bud right before you chop it. if its full grown u wont lose weight. i hate u trolls whos nute filled bud sparks like a sparkler


We're trolls? Well you're a noob that clearly doesn't understand plants..."chem water in the buds"...put your helmet back on before you hurt yourself.


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 5, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> weed plants are like sponges. do you rinse your sponge before you put it out on the counter or do you leave egg batter and cheese sauce crustys on it before putting it on the counter. i watch as leaves perk up after absorbing a watering. plants draw that shit in. if theres chems in it they will be drawn in. why would you not give plain water right before harvest. for at least a couple feedings not some extreme starving but at least so its not straight up chem water in ur bud right before you chop it. if its full grown u wont lose weight. i hate u trolls whos nute filled bud sparks like a sparkler


Weed plants are like sponges is the basis of your argument? I do not flush and notice none of the "myths" that are supposedly associated with not flushing. I am also an asthmatic and if there was built up chems in my buds I would know... I smoke one cigarette and I can't breathe, not the case with ANY weed I smoke. If people are going to bring an argument relating to flushing vs not at least have something to back it up with, not a weed plant is like a sponge that needs rung out.


----------



## donmagicjuan (Jan 5, 2012)

cause and effect you can watch it happen


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> weed plants are like sponges. do you rinse your sponge before you put it out on the counter or do you leave egg batter and cheese sauce crustys on it before putting it on the counter. i watch as leaves perk up after absorbing a watering. plants draw that shit in. if theres chems in it they will be drawn in. why would you not give plain water right before harvest. for at least a couple feedings not some extreme starving but at least so its not straight up chem water in ur bud right before you chop it. if its full grown u wont lose weight. i hate u trolls whos nute filled bud sparks like a sparkler


And buddy if your plants are "perking up" when you water them, its probably a sign they need water more frequently, they should never need "perking up".

I love when the new guy calls the experienced guys trolls whilst trolling a thread himself, stating if he doesn't pull the handle before harvest his plants taste like crap.


----------



## wbd (Jan 5, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> I'm not agreeing on pre-harvest flushing not harming your plants.
> I myself have said that I think it might lower productivity, since I believe the same conditions as for ryegrass on nutrient storage are applicable for cannabis and therefor I believe that giving your plants deficiency will lower potential yield.
> I don't see where (the fact that causing deficiency isn't harmful) this is backed by good science or common sense either.


"Might"... Exactly.

I meant that the deficiency being harmful is backed by good science and common sense (not the opposite). Your claim in supported by theory only, not by demonstration. Still, the best we can demonstrate in practice is "no difference".

I am suggesting that all mights, maybes, could be's and feelings be rejected universally... not just on the pro-flushing side of things. Let's stick with what we can demonstrate in reality, not just on paper.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 5, 2012)

you should never flush to the point of deficiency, u add plain water cause theres enough to do the plant in there already. that is starving your plants


----------



## donmagicjuan (Jan 5, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> And buddy if your plants are "perking up" when you water them, its probably a sign they need water more frequently, they should never need "perking up".
> 
> I love when the new guy calls the experienced guys trolls whilst trolling a thread himself, stating if he doesn't pull the handle before harvest his plants taste like crap.


like i said u dont know shit go drown a plant cause you got no experience you look to ur little troll buddies to back you up my plants dont taste like crap learn to read with ur sparkler bowlpack


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 5, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> like i said u dont know shit go drown a plant cause you got no experience you look to ur little troll buddies to back you up my plants dont taste like crap learn to read with ur sparkler bowlpack


Have you ever tried not flushing your plants? Or are you just stating it as a must because that is what you have read?


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 5, 2012)

sparking is more likely due to improper drying/curing. seen mites give off little sparks, explain to me whats actually making the spark in your head?


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 5, 2012)

I would've thought that maybe the spark is from the flint from the lighter, when you light the bowl, some of the flint lands into the bowl, and some of it will spark when a flame is put to it. 

Nutes will not make weed spark.


----------



## jpowers (Jan 5, 2012)

I've been growing for over 40 years now and attended the Cannabis cup many times and talked to many master growers and none of them flush.

You need to understand, if you flush before harvest, basically all the "bad" nutrients like nitrogen will move into the buds and by the time you harvest, the buds will probably have 85-90% nitrogen left in them. Now that means the buds only have 10-15% less nitrogen in them instead of say 100% that they would have if you did not flush and kept feeding the plants till harvest. The difference? A little less nutes, NOWHERE NEAR NUTELESS BUD, but because you did not feed the plant for the last 2 weeks, the most vital 2 weeks in the plants entire life, you just lost about 10-15% of bud growth.

In my 40 years of growing I notice that the last 2 weeks of flower show the fastest growth. If you stop feeding the plant it certainly won't die but like any living organism it will slow down or stop growth and go into survival mode. Instead of building more storage space for nutes (such as leaves, bud) it will stop that production as it's no longer needed and all energy will go into staying alive with a little devoted to seed production if your females have been pollinated.

Nutrients are fuel to every living organism, be it humans or plants, without fuel you cannot function properly and at peak performance.

Now I'm not saying that the bud may not have a chemical taste to it due to this but this is what the cure process is for, even the most harshest bud will be smooth as silk after a months cure.


----------



## jpowers (Jan 5, 2012)

Eraserhead said:


> I would've thought that maybe the spark is from the flint from the lighter, when you light the bowl, some of the flint lands into the bowl, and some of it will spark when a flame is put to it.
> 
> Nutes will not make weed spark.


The sparks come from pockets of flammable gas that are trapped inside the bud sacs. I'm sure you've noticed plenty of times that these sparks are usually accompanied by small pieces flying out, that's due to the gas igniting and discharging out of the most weakest part which is usually the top as that's what's being burnt.


----------



## Rumple (Jan 5, 2012)

I emailed George Cervantes to see if he can give another prospective on this subject (he has been to a few cups). I hope he does not think I'm stalking him.
Will post his reply.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2012)

One thing I always wondered was how come seed companies always have perfectly green plants in their pictures yet people insist they need to yellow "naturally" before harvest. 

Why do the seed companies keep their plants green till harvest? Are they doing it "wrong"? Lol.


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 5, 2012)

wbd said:


> "Might"... Exactly.
> 
> I meant that the deficiency being harmful is backed by good science and common sense (not the opposite). Your claim in supported by theory only, not by demonstration. Still, the best we can demonstrate in practice is "no difference".
> 
> I am suggesting that all mights, maybes, could be's and feelings be rejected universally... not just on the pro-flushing side of things. Let's stick with what we can demonstrate in reality, not just on paper.


If you agree that deficiency is harmful to plants (and that this is backed by good science and common sense) then why do you find the need to reject the theory I stipulated, about nutrient storage in cannabis and how that relates to pre-harvest flushing?
It is after all only a theory and I make sure to make it clear it's a theory, I have never claimed it to be scientific fact.
One day I hope to do so though, but the scientific research is lacking at the moment.

Even if we do reject all theories and focus solely on scientific fact, we're still left with:




k0ijn said:


> Why go through the hassle of pre-harvest flushing, getting new water, replacing water (getting rid of the old solution), running it through the system, re-pH'ing etc (which can be a genuine hassle if you have a medium sized grow or larger) if it doesn't improve your grow in any way?


-



VanishingToaster said:


> you should never flush to the point of deficiency, u add plain water cause theres enough to do the plant in there already. that is starving your plants


However, most people who pre-harvest flush, flush with pure tap water, RO water and cause deficiency within days.
It lies in the definition of pre-harvest flushing that you cause a deficiency, since most people who do it, simply remove their nutrient solution completely.
The general advice on pre-harvest flushing from "pre-harvest flushing experts" is: "flush with pure water".








jpowers said:


> A little less nutes, NOWHERE NEAR NUTELESS BUD, but because you did not feed the plant for the last 2 weeks, the most vital 2 weeks in the plants entire life, you just lost about 10-15% of bud growth.


That is basically the same as my theory of nutrient storage, usage and productivity loss by deficiency.
And I agree with you, people pre-harvest flushing are starving their plants in the most critical phase of growing, where most growth is achieved by the plants and thus, a loss of yield should be noticeable due to the deficiency.
However, we don't have scientific studies showing this, it's still a viable theory in my opinion.


----------



## donmagicjuan (Jan 5, 2012)

rocpilefsj said:


> Have you ever tried not flushing your plants? Or are you just stating it as a must because that is what you have read?


i always flush i wait until its basically done and the last few days flush it well clean water in = clean water in product, fertilizer dosed water in= fertilizer dosed product sorry dudes


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 5, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> i always flush i wait until its basically done and the last few days flush it well clean water in = clean water in product, fertilizer dosed water in= fertilizer dosed product sorry dudes


Funny how you're high and mighty but have no clue even how water and nutrients are taken up and transported in the plant. 
*facepalm*


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 5, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> i always flush i wait until its basically done and the last few days flush it well clean water in = clean water in product, fertilizer dosed water in= fertilizer dosed product sorry dudes







Originally Posted by *Harrekin*  
Funny how you're high and mighty but have no clue even how water and nutrients are taken up and transported in the plant. 
*facepalm*



Or even have any first hand experience, Do yourself a favor try not flushing one of your plants and cure it properly. Now comes the toughest part, suck up your pride and do a non biased blind taste test of flushed and unflushed weed. You will then have an understanding of the conversation and not blurt out fables. Lets be pro-active do some investigating on your own 
and find out for yourself.

I just don't get how someone can stand so strongly on flushing with no knowledge of not flushing.


----------



## Rumple (Jan 5, 2012)

Rumpleforskin,

You are correct to flush and might even want to flush for a few days longer.
Many uninformed people tell stories.

I'm a bit difficult to get a hold of because I am in Spain for the next few
months. I should be at a public event in CA sometime this summer or fall.

Thanks for the offer,

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From:Edited
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:32 AM
To: [email protected]


Jorge, I have talked to you in the past a bunch of times (about your stuff
being pirated) yet I still don't have a proper email address for you my
brotha.

I need a professional opinion on the subject of flushing before harvest.
I keep hearing statement like this _"I've been growing for over 40 years now
and attended the Cannabis cup many times and talked to many master growers
and none of them flush."_
Have I been doing this shit all wrong? Or is this type of comment just
fantasy? I have always flushed with pure water seven to ten days before
harvest.

Another thing... You said you would test some of my fine California indoor
bud next time you came to Cali. How can I hook up with you to give you a
nice jar of samples for you to test?
Would love to hear from you.
Rumple.


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 6, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Rumpleforskin,
> 
> You are correct to flush and might even want to flush for a few days longer.
> Many uninformed people tell stories.
> ...



Ah yes because Jorge Cervantes is the world renowned expert in Cannabis.
He is not just a author who copies what other people have written.

Well explained by him btw;



> You are correct to flush and might even want to flush for a few days longer.
> Many uninformed people tell stories.


That really puts the whole issue to rest huh?
I mean this guy probably doesn't even know how nutrients are stored in cannabis, nor how they are transported within the plant.
I don't see him using scientific studies to backup his theories.
I'd trust a scientific research paper over this guy any day.

Another thing that is remarkable is that you chose to quote a guy who wrote that thing about growing for 40 years, you didn't choose to quote me for example, or the study I posted, or any of the other scientific evidence I posted about nutrient storage, usage, and transportation.
Why didn't you at least link this thread to him so he can check out the facts for himself?

I know he's well known in the growing community, but that doesn't make his word gospel, especially not when he can't provide proper factual information to backup his words.

We need scientific evidence, like the studies I posted.
Not a few words from an author known to take material written by others and use it himself as fact.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 6, 2012)

k0ijn said:


> Ah yes because Jorge Cervantes is the world renowned expert in Cannabis.
> He is not just a author who copies what other people have written.
> 
> Well explained by him btw;
> ...


agreed! for all we know you typed the whole thing, certainly no actual information in that post


----------



## Rumple (Jan 6, 2012)

> Well explained by him btw


If you have any more questions for Jorge you can email him yourself at [email protected]

I feel growing experience counts for something. Jorge does offer some good insight into growing cannabis. Was a judge for years at the Cup and has talked with thousands of growers all over the world. I know he can produce top quality bud. What is wrong with listening to what he has to say? No one knows everthing, but when do we give someone credit for real life results? He was cool enough to answer my question, don't drag him through the dirt. K0iijn, you have some valid points.
I am ok with anyone who does not agree with what Jorge said, but I see no villain here.


----------



## Rumple (Jan 6, 2012)

VanishingToaster said:


> for all we know you typed the whole thing


I have to admit, that hurt. I am on the fence about flushing and don't have a real passion for this debate one way or another. I felt it was just a friendly conversation between a bunch of guys who like growing weed. Some very good points from both sides. More science from the non-flushers and lots of first hand experience from the flushers. I edited out my email address and I did not spell his name correct in the original post to Jorge (George), other then that it is real.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 6, 2012)

Rumple said:


> I have to admit, that hurt. I am on the fence about flushing and don't have a real passion for this debate one way or another. I felt it was just a friendly conversation between a bunch of guys who like growing weed. Some very good points from both sides. More science from the non-flushers and lots of first hand experience from the flushers. I edited out my email address and I did not spell his name correct in the original post to Jorge (George), other then that it is real.


my apologies, wasn't trying to hurt you, just pointing out that it doesn't really count as any proof whatsoever one way or another, thats the problem with quoting sources only available to you. while i'm sure he grows some good shit, his opinion is only his opinion and without the credibility of having your own original information (seen a few people slag him off for copy n pasting and re-selling)i am sadly lacking the willpower to believe what the king of the re-hash has to say.


----------



## Rumple (Jan 6, 2012)

He is the only well known author I know that would answer an email from me. Opinions from good growers do matter to me.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 6, 2012)

Rumple said:


> He is the only well known author I know that would answer an email from me. Opinions from good growers do matter to me.


Would you explain to me what exactly a "good grower" is? I think all these "celebrity growers" are all just the same, people who can provide an excellent environment, lots of light and water/nutrients at just the right times. What exactly makes these guys supposedly so different? Do they do some voodoo dance around the plants or know some magic words? 

Jorge is a smart guy for actually going to the hassle of making a growing "anthology" book, but the worship of him as some supreme grower is laughable, he's just some guy!


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Would you explain to me what exactly a "good grower" is? I think all these "celebrity growers" are all just the same, people who can provide an excellent environment, lots of light and water/nutrients at just the right times. What exactly makes these guys supposedly so different? Do they do some voodoo dance around the plants or know some magic words?
> 
> Jorge is a smart guy for actually going to the hassle of making a growing "anthology" book, but the worship of him as some supreme grower is laughable, he's just some guy!


"Some guy" who wrote a book on the matter trumps "some guy" on the RIU forums. At least he's not anonymous. Just sayin'.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 6, 2012)

see, another person who hasn't read the thread thinking he knows it all. go read the thread from the beginning, a large chunk of discussion was pulling up scientific studies. its not just a bunch of fishwives gabbin like ur portraying us.


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

VanishingToaster said:


> see, another person who hasn't read the thread thinking he knows it all. go read the thread from the beginning, a large chunk of discussion was pulling up scientific studies. its not just a bunch of fishwives gabbin like ur portraying us.


Ease up, we're all anonymous here aren't we? I'm not portraying anybody as anything. Agree with him or not (reminder that I do not pre-harvest flush), Jorge Cervantes is more legit then anyone involved in this discussion. It seems ludicrous to me to attack his credibility when his credentials are far greater than anyone participating in this discussion. We're just people on the internet posting under cute (and sometimes stupid) names.

Also, posting a scientific study doesn't automatically make you some expert on plants, it just makes you adept at research. Same with writing a book, actually (this means you, Jorge Cervantes). Google makes research very easy these days. 

While I appreciate all of the science referenced in this discussion, I guess the fact that folks were able to copy/paste it here doesn't impress me as much as it impresses you.


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 6, 2012)

I have done both and noticed no pro or con on either. Its a certainty that an overfed plant will crackle a bit but surely proper feeding would solve that problem. I think its more of what makes the grower feel confident about the final product definetly being quality. Theres been some great points on both sides of the fench by the way peeps.
PEACE OUT


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 6, 2012)

no, finding relevent materials with google impresses me, y'know hard concrete proof that professional scientists have monitored the control experiments properly, people who are practised in not letting variable factors enter experiments. finding the stuff they've done regarding general farming techniques and pulling out the right study relevant to the weed topic is what i was meaning.

so what about all the other growers with books? all i was pointing out is that just because some dude writes it in a book, doesn't make it gospol, there plenty books out there, bet there some that contradict others, thats why i wont give them the credit.

but if u wanna take an email from cervantes over the studies published thats ur call. he wont sway my opinion because he has a book


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

VanishingToaster said:


> no, finding relevent materials with google impresses me, y'know hard concrete proof that professional scientists have monitored the control experiments properly, people who are practised in not letting variable factors enter experiments. finding the stuff they've done regarding general farming techniques and pulling out the right study relevant to the weed topic is what i was meaning.
> 
> so what about all the other growers with books? all i was pointing out is that just because some dude writes it in a book, doesn't make it gospol, there plenty books out there, bet there some that contradict others, thats why i wont give them the credit.
> 
> but if u wanna take an email from cervantes over the studies published thats ur call. he wont sway my opinion because he has a book


I just said it above, but I guess I'll say it again:

Being adept at research doesn't impress me. That includes Jorge Cervantes. From what I understand, his books are essentially the paper form of copy/paste. I'll not be swayed to start flushing by him.

Nothing beats real world experience. I tried flushing both ways, I found no difference. I flushed my first few grows because that's what everyone at the time seemed to believe, then I stopped doing it and it didn't make a difference. 

Until someone compels me otherwise, I'll never pre-harvest flush again. Now 42 pages later, it's not looking like my mind will be changing anytime soon.


----------



## KushDog (Jan 6, 2012)

why does the compassion club tell people to not feed there plants the last 2 weeks. I guess they read that myth online and have never grown there own weed???? I dont think so. The unflushed bud was to harsh, so now they flush there weed and no one complans.... Next time i go to the compassion club I will tell the guy there he dont know how to grow weed, because he flushes to take away the chemical taste.. LMFAO


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 6, 2012)

the studies only impressed me because i was able to draw a conclusion from them, that flushing is advisable if you've really over-fed. they showed that plants would use all parts of them to store excess.

however if ur even vaguely competant flushing isn't worthwhile. whereas cervantes email sadly had no value, if his books had real value then this thread wouldn't even exist.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 6, 2012)

KushDog said:


> why does the compassion club tell people to not feed there plants the last 2 weeks. I guess they read that myth online and have never grown there own weed???? I dont think so. The unflushed bud was to harsh, so now they flush there weed and no one complans.... Next time i go to the compassion club I will tell the guy there he dont know how to grow weed, because he flushes to take away the chemical taste.. LMFAO


IF he had chemmed up bud then he really wants to watch how hot his soil is and maybe half the nutes he's using. if it was just a harshness, then thats all down to the cure. another twat pops up forgetting his clue


----------



## KushDog (Jan 6, 2012)

all you NON flushers say "it must of been cured wrong" i find it funny that if you take a Flushed bud un cured and you dont get the harshness/popping/black ash/ flamethower to thorat. why does Flush buds never do that, and only unflush ones do????? I guess if you flush it dont matter how you cure it, because it dont ever pop and cracle like unflush stuff.


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 6, 2012)

Can't say iv ever had weed that bad.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 6, 2012)

wbd said:


> "Some guy" who wrote a book on the matter trumps "some guy" on the RIU forums. At least he's not anonymous. Just sayin'.


Ok so if I was to write a book on the subject using info pulled from here will that make me one of your "gr0w g0dz" ??


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 6, 2012)

KushDog said:


> all you NON flushers say "it must of been cured wrong" i find it funny that if you take a Flushed bud un cured and you dont get the harshness/popping/black ash/ flamethower to thorat. why does Flush buds never do that, and only unflush ones do????? I guess if you flush it dont matter how you cure it, because it dont ever pop and cracle like unflush stuff.


Well I guess you wouldn't know "Mr One harvest CFL" (and I'll use the next term loosely) grower. How about when you've grown 100's of plants (with real lights) and have actually tried flushing and not flushing for yourself and tried different drying/curing techniques then come back and participate...until then all you have is "some guy said". 

Thanks.


----------



## KushDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Well I guess you wouldn't know "Mr One harvest CFL" (and I'll use the next term loosely) grower. How about when you've grown 100's of plants (with real lights) and have actually tried flushing and not flushing for yourself and tried different drying/curing techniques then come back and participate...until then all you have is "some guy said".
> 
> Thanks.



i have what "some guy said" vs what you said....... I think i will stick with the info I got from some one that has Grown cannabis plants before, unlike your self that hasn't grown anything


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 6, 2012)

KushDog said:


> i have what "some guy said" vs what you said....... I think i will stick with the info I got from some one that has Grown cannabis plants before, unlike your self that hasn't grown anything


awwwww ur not very bright are you? u seen his avatar there? maybe check out his posts too, i seen an ak48 and a seperate snow white grow without even scrolling down!


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Ok so if I was to write a book on the subject using info pulled from here will that make me one of your "gr0w g0dz" ??


No, it would just make you more credible than you are now.


----------



## genuity (Jan 6, 2012)

since we can not smoke one another buds,we will never know.if flush vs. non flush is best,its all just bullshit.
i stop watering a week befor harvest,am i starveing my plants?


----------



## k0ijn (Jan 6, 2012)

VanishingToaster said:


> the studies only impressed me because i was able to draw a conclusion from them, that flushing is advisable if you've really over-fed. they showed that plants would use all parts of them to store excess.
> 
> however if ur even vaguely competant flushing isn't worthwhile. whereas cervantes email sadly had no value, if his books had real value then this thread wouldn't even exist.



I really enjoy seeing a post like this.
This is exactly why I posted the study, to get the information out there.
And to see you take in the information and actively use it to argue in favour of science is just brilliant!


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 6, 2012)

i was a severe advocate of flushing is for toilets only, but i used the information to form a conclusion, not manipulating it to match my pre-formed conclusion...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s <<<<< give it a watch.

now it all makes sense why people on both sides doing very different things regarding the flushing only have had very different results, its clearly not soley down to flushing, its like taking antibiotics when u aint sick, not gonna kill you but not needed


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 6, 2012)

VanishingToaster said:


> awwwww ur not very bright are you? u seen his avatar there? maybe check out his posts too, i seen an ak48 and a seperate snow white grow without even scrolling down!


Yeah and for the record I ain't been posting in them to update them either, so it's all about a year old or something. I love these people who say "you've never grown anything" when all they have to do is look, Iv nearly daily updates on the AK48 one ffs.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 6, 2012)

wbd said:


> I just said it above, but I guess I'll say it again:
> 
> Nothing beats real world experience. I tried flushing both ways, I found no difference. I flushed my first few grows because that's what everyone at the time seemed to believe, then I stopped doing it and it didn't make a difference.
> 
> Until someone compels me otherwise, I'll never pre-harvest flush again. Now 42 pages later, it's not looking like my mind will be changing anytime soon.


exactly! I used too as well...

and YES you are all right about us non flushers who don't have enough credible facts (although we've posted so pretty insightful studies) backing up our belief but take alook at yourselfs, Im not seeing any credible evidence to back pre harvest flushing either so why take an extra un needed step when the end result is the same. 

Here comes the all high and mighty responses about my chemmed up but that is harsh bla blah blah, but please for the people so strongly arguing for flushing, dont flush a plant and see for yourselfs before chimming in, I feel your not equiped with enough knowledge for the discussion untill personal experience has been taking into consideration. yet most arguing have never tried to find out for themselves, it's just easier to listen to someone else.


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 6, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Yeah and for the record I ain't been posting in them to update them either, so it's all about a year old or something. I love these people who say "you've never grown anything" when all they have to do is look, Iv nearly daily updates on the AK48 one ffs.


Hey i was following your grow scribed and all, how it go in the end mate?


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 6, 2012)

KushDog said:


> i have what "some guy said" vs what you said....... I think i will stick with the info I got from some one that has Grown cannabis plants before, unlike your self that hasn't grown anything


Hes actually a good grower, just not great at updates. Ya not so bright aye


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

This is my latest crop, Tahoe OG Kush. Grown on AN Sensi without any kind of 'flush' at the end. Best tasting / smelling weed I've grown... And that's because I DID NOT flush. Taste and smell are acheived through correct NPK ratios and PPMs and proper drying and curing... not flushing.

A plant with brown, stressed, crispy leaves at the end means it was overnuted and burned due to salt buildup. Weed like this will not taste or smell its best... but not because there are 'chemicals' from unflushed nute, but because it's stressed bud. A routine 30 minute to an hour water flush weekly between water changes is all you need to prevent buildup that hurts your final bud through stress, not because there are 'unflushed nutrients' in it.


----------



## SlimJim503 (Jan 6, 2012)

Man thats some shwag send it to me for disposal ASAP!!!! These jockers have never seen and or grown dank like this hahahah cuz they flush and their plants never get to this stage hahahahha!


----------



## genuity (Jan 6, 2012)

we will never know!!!!!!!
we all got pics.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

genuity said:


> we will never know!!!!!!!
> we all got pics.


Yeah, for all you know bud that looks like that could taste like shit, right?

And I don't see your pic.


----------



## genuity (Jan 6, 2012)

i have no idea what your bud taste like,im saying pics do not help,in this case.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

genuity said:


> View attachment 1978533
> i have no idea what your bud taste like,im saying pics do not help,in this case.


How about the reviews of others on this site who have smoked my bud?

Cheeze? Where you at? Tell this guy what my unflushed bud tastes like.


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> How about the reviews of others on this site who have smoked by bud?
> 
> Cheeze? Where you at? Tell this guy what my unflushed bud tastes like.


He's right, the pictures don't say too much in this context. I'm sure we could find some equally delicious looking flushed bud pics.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

wbd said:


> He's right, the pictures don't say too much in this context. I'm sure we could find some equally delicious looking flushed bud pics.


That's fine. I'll smoke my weed. He can keep his.

Edit: I'm in Los Angeles, CA. I'll taste test my bud head to head against any flusher from any part of the world. Soil grower, hydro, any strain... bring it on. I'll win.


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

And of course pictures of kief are complete irrelevant.


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> That's fine. I'll smoke my weed, he can keep his.


OK, you do that.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

wbd said:


> OK, you do that.


I will, you little prick.


----------



## genuity (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> How about the reviews of others on this site who have smoked my bud?
> 
> Cheeze? Where you at? Tell this guy what my unflushed bud tastes like.


really!!! I still will not know what it taste like.
your bud looks good,and i bet it smokes good to.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

wbd said:


> And of course pictures of kief are complete irrelevant.


Not as irrelevant as you.


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> I will, you little prick.


Great. Oh and your plants look amazing. I know you were dying to hear that.


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Not as irrelevant as you.


That's not very nice.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

genuity said:


> really!!! I still will not know what it taste like.
> your bud looks good,and i bet it smokes good to.


It smokes great. I'm sure your shit is good too.

Where you at? Come to my house. Smoke my weed. Then you tell RIU if not flushing is incorrect.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

wbd said:


> Great. Oh and your plants look amazing. I know you were dying to hear that.


I've heard it a million times from better people than you.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

wbd said:


> That's not very nice.


I'm not nice. You wanna find out just how not nice?


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> I've heard it a million times from better people than you.


Congratulations on the enormity of your success!


----------



## wbd (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> I'm not nice. You wanna find out just how not nice?


Not if it involves disrupting this thread any further. But otherwise, yes I have to admit I'm curious.


----------



## cocakola (Jan 6, 2012)

My thing with Flushing vs. Not Flushing is ok lets say you did flush what are you flushing , if the nutes are in the buds and you are flushing them out how is this happening? is the plant sending water to the buds to remove build up now all of a sudden and they know this bcuz your giving them only water ?

I dont get it the solution is water based and the plant takes what nitrogen (water etc) it needs when feeding. Like said earlier IMO if you start to feed it just water(which they've been getting anyway) they look for the other food they were getting and find it in themselves and eat away.

Im thinking it defeats the purpose , if you feed your plants all there life(water , n, p , k , ca , mg etc) and they've been eating this using what they need to produce everything they are why would feeding only water at the end help? And why would you think you can get out all those months of nutes out in a week or two?


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 6, 2012)

Let's keep the thread on track fellas. Posts that are irrelevant to the topic or attacks/flaming will be deleted. We have some great discussion going, let's not ruin this thread with useless bickering and fighting.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

rocpilefsj said:


> Let's keep the thread on track fellas. Posts that are irrelevant to the topic or attacks/flaming will be deleted. We have some great discussion going, let's not ruin this thread with useless bickering and fighting.


Hey, flushing is wrong. Period. It's really not so much a discussion as it is those of us who know just trying to convince flushers. I'm just trying to help.

My bud excels in the LA club scene. Our city is almost as famous as Amsterdam in connection with ganja for good reason. Growers have been breeding the best OG genetics for decades here. I have extensive experience dealing with LA shop managers. These people see bomb of every shape and form every day... day in and day out. Crystal covered shit is nothing to these guys. They've seen it all before. To get their attention you have to do everything just right and better. When they open your jar, it better be a smell they remember when they go home... otherwise, you never get a call back. Again, after years and years of fine-tuning, and the recent involvement of another RIU member who brought me the right genetics, I'm finally king of the hill in LA. If anyone has a problem with that, or doesn't believe me, I'll taste test anything they've grown against mine. 

I understand that no matter how much my bud pics kick ass (and they do), it doesn't tell you how they smoke. But there are much more diplomatic ways to express that idea than either of those dudes posted. And if you know anything about pot, you know that there is a level of visual appeal that pretty much guarantees great weed. I don't have to smell or smoke weed to know that it's legit. If it's such an excellent visual specimen, all educated growers know that it excels. Anyone who questions this is just showing their lack of experience.

Edit:
All due respect to the great shit coming out of Canada, too.

I may sound like I talk a lot of shit. And many wonder why I bother when I have the threads and pix to do all the talking... And really, I'm not a boastful person by nature, but I've never been what one would consider bashful, either.

I state it plainly. If any of these growers on RIU think that what they're growing is better on average than the top shelf shop meds in the LA scene (which I doubt) then it still has my weed to contend with, which on average *IS* superior to top shelf LA shop meds. That's just a statement of fact. And I don't flush.

Edit 2:
Seriously, I know there are a lot of talented growers here. But before you think about sticking that chest out, you should bring one of your jars into an LA shop. See what they say. 

This is what they do: They look at your jar, they hold it up to the light with a frown, they pop it open and sniff it with a frown. Then they whip out one of their jars, pop it open, and hand it to you. This is the kind of scrutiny and fierce competition I'm used to. Can you compete? I can. And not only do I compete, on average I win. 

Not flushing has improved my win column... When I was flushing, I had a harder time of it with these shop guys. What more do I need to say?


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Hey, flushing is wrong. Period. It's really not so much a discussion as it is those of us who know just trying to convince flushers. I'm just trying to help.
> 
> My bud excels in the LA club scene. Our city is almost as famous as Amsterdam in connection with ganja for good reason. Growers have been breeding the best OG genetics for decades here. I have extensive experience dealing with LA shop managers. These people see bomb of every shape and form every day... day in and day out. Crystal covered shit is nothing to these guys. They've seen it all before. To get their attention you have to do everything just right and better. When they open your jar, it better be a smell they remember when they go home... otherwise, you never get a call back. Again, after years and years of fine-tuning, and the recent involvement of another RIU member who brought me the right genetics, I'm finally king of the hill in LA. If anyone has a problem with that, or doesn't believe me, I'll taste test anything they've grown against mine.
> 
> ...


We both agree when it comes to the flushing issue, up until a couple years ago I flushed every crop I grew until I was convinced by some guys on here to give not flushing a try. I was surprised to find that I could not tell a difference between the two. I have never had dark ash, never had weed that pops or weed that tastes like chemicals. 

The more the thread gets drug into name calling and negativity the less people are going to take it seriously. Just doing my job...


----------



## genuity (Jan 6, 2012)

haha,my buds the best..............hahaha,thats just to funny.
king of the hill!!!!in cali?for real?


any way,i never said i flush,or not flush.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

genuity said:


> haha,my buds the best..............hahaha,thats just to funny.
> king of the hill!!!!in cali?for real?
> 
> 
> any way,i never said i flush,or not flush.


Hey, man. I've smoked every OG known to man in countless LA shops. My weed is better. I'm not talking shit. It's just the truth.

You takin' a dig on Cali now? Where you from? Just where exactly would "in the soil" be?

Cali fuckin' rules, dude. We're leading the charge and setting the standard for medical marijuana in the United States. Our weed is better. It's true and you're just jealous. I'll say it again and again.

edit:
And exactly. This is a thread about flushing. So you're off topic and just taking shots at me.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

rocpilefsj said:


> We both agree when it comes to the flushing issue, up until a couple years ago I flushed every crop I grew until I was convinced by some guys on here to give not flushing a try. I was surprised to find that I could not tell a difference between the two. I have never had dark ash, never had weed that pops or weed that tastes like chemicals.
> 
> The more the thread gets drug into name calling and negativity the less people are going to take it seriously. Just doing my job...


I think the quality of the name calling has everything to do with whether a reader takes it seriously or not. The good information in the discussion is there. It's just peppered with 'colorful language.'

If anything I think it would get more attention than a bland discussion where everyone is just stroking one another. Lol.


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 6, 2012)

When I started growing, I flushed, because that's how I was taught, after about 10 years of doing it that way, I tried not flushing and noticed no difference in taste, no sparks, no exploding weed or little chemical elves climbing out of the weed and chewing on my face, or whatever fairy tale myths there are out there. I have not flushed for 10 years. My buds seemed fuller when I stopped flushing, and with flavor remaining the same, that is what convinced me flushing is nothing but hokum. 

Best advice though, try it both ways and see for yourself. Taking advice on a forum from people that could for all we know have never even seen a marijuana plant, and could be a 15 year old kid in front of a computer, taking that advice sounds sketchy to me. Or don't try it both ways and you will never _definitively_ know either way. 

Either way, happy growing


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

I think the moderator should smoke genuity's bud and my bud. Then he could report back on this thread. Now that's what I would call moderating.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

Eraserhead said:


> When I started growing, I flushed, because that's how I was taught, after about 10 years of doing it that way, I tried not flushing and noticed no difference in taste, no sparks, no exploding weed or little chemical elves climbing out of the weed and chewing on my face, or whatever fairy tale myths there are out there. I have not flushed for 10 years. My buds seemed fuller when I stopped flushing, and with flavor remaining the same, that is what convinced me flushing is nothing but hokum.
> 
> Best advice though, try it both ways and see for yourself. Taking advice on a forum from people that could for all we know have never even seen a marijuana plant, and could be a 15 year old kid in front of a computer, taking that advice sounds sketchy to me. Or don't try it both ways and you will never _definitively_ know either way.
> 
> Either way, happy growing


Why can't I be more even-keeled like you? Well put. I have an accelerated setup, so flushing was actually hurting me. I know it's not such a severe case with everyone, but yes, I've seen more depth of bud maturity without flushing, too.


----------



## genuity (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Hey, man. I've smoked every OG known to man in countless LA shops. My weed is better. I'm not talking shit. It's just the truth.
> 
> You takin' a dig on Cali now? Where you from? Just where exactly would "in the soil" be?
> 
> ...


we need to stay on track,but you keep going?
why would i need to take a dig at you?who are you,for me to want to do that?
you said you are "king of the hill"not me,its a lot of peps in cali,to be king of them all...........

this is all to funny.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 6, 2012)

genuity said:


> we need to stay on track,but you keep going?
> why would i need to take a dig at you?who are you,for me to want to do that?
> you said you are "king of the hill"not me,its a lot of peps in cali,to be king of them all...........
> 
> this is all to funny.


Yeah, I never stop. And I always stay on track.

You just stop replying or let's have the moderator taste test our weed. Tahoe OG from Los Angeles against your purple thing.

Even if I'm not King of the Hill in LA, I'm king of any hill you and I are standing on.

See, you don't seem to understand. I actually enjoy this.

Edit:
"We need to stay on track?"

You admitted yourself that you made no mention of flush / no flush when you started posting in this thread. You just saw my post, didn't like it, so posted a picture of your weed. What did you contribute to this thread other than "my bud is just as good as your bud?" You started it by confronting my opinion by showing me a picture of your weed. Then you tell me I need to stay on track after the mod shows up?

I can forgive some for bad English, but you're a stupid child.


----------



## genuity (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Yeah, I never stop. And I always stay on track.
> 
> You just stop replying or let's have the moderator taste test our weed. Tahoe OG from Los Angeles against your purple thing.
> 
> ...


hahaha,this is just too funny,.

have a mod taste your buds?what are you talking about?
is that some kind of "threat"?

so now,its about me and you?


----------



## Rumple (Jan 6, 2012)

> More Crappy Unflushed Bud


Try flushing if it comes out crappy. Other then that it looks good.


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 6, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Try flushing if it comes out crappy. Other then that it looks good.


Lol, he was being sarcastic Rumple! It can be hard to pick up sarcasm when reading what someone has typed I know.


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 6, 2012)

lordjin said:


> I think the moderator should smoke genuity's bud and my bud. Then he could report back on this thread. Now that's what I would call moderating.


I agree ! That is what I would call moderating as well.


----------



## genuity (Jan 6, 2012)

rocpilefsj said:


> I agree ! That is what I would call moderating as well.


haha..........mods.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 7, 2012)

Rumple said:


> In this discussion, we have discredited any evidence from: opinions from expert growers, opinions or accounts from well known authors, an email from a well known author, anyone who grows weed, anyone's friends who have smoked our weed, anyone who has typed in this thread, pictures, and my wife. Did I miss anyone?
> 
> Oh, the above my count as proof only if it is in support of your view.
> 
> Got it.


Have you not noticed yet that toilet growers on this site are a dying breed? The only people who stand beside you on that belief are the total noobs who read it in Cervantes book. Everyone else has tried flushing and not flushing, and it seems anyone who tried it actually said "I used to flush but I tried not and it was the same". All the toilet growers just keep saying "but Cervantes told me too!"


----------



## donmagicjuan (Jan 7, 2012)

troll thread. water is awful. the plant is done...more nutes!!


----------



## wbd (Jan 7, 2012)

lordjin said:


> I think the moderator should smoke genuity's bud and my bud. Then he could report back on this thread. Now that's what I would call moderating.


Now exactly what would that prove?

You do realize that the reasons your bud looks so nice are related to the first 90% of your grow, and has much less or little to do with how you treated the plant for the last week or 2? 

And you do realize that the most common report from people that actually tried flush/no-flush is that there is NO DIFFERENCE in final product?


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 7, 2012)

Im going on record to say, I do have mad respect for cervantez but the fact he gave a brief answer with no logical explination isn't enough for me to change my mind. I am very open to flushing if someone can tell/prove to me why it's soo important. ok the people who always flush say my buds are shit yet haven't tried not flushing for themselves. The people who have grown for awhile and have attempted testing flushed/unflushed weed all notice their is no difference. Myself included in this since I've done 3 tests and haven't noticed any difference. Yet were still here beating a dead horse, the thread is on repeat and now were measuring who's got the bigger dick and not so much on the logics of flushing. Im still waiting for solid evidence that flushing does something. I have done what I can to provide links/facts/answers to the topic and have been getting help from others on both sides.

Their has been no inclusive evidence that flushing/notflushing does anything. I feel the unflushed bud advocates have proved their point with some resources and study's to back them up. Yet people are still chimming in who have *A *never not flushed or *B* just flush because that's what everyone does. Everyone used to do alot of things (think cigs were safe, not wear seatbelts, eat fastfood without thinking its unhealthy) but time has showed us that these original beliefs aren't always true. Now what if Cervantez believed the world was going to end on Dec 21 like some of these nut jobs. WOuld you go wild just because some author wrote that? or would you use your own brain to make up a decision? and that's where were at with this. I don't care how credibal or uncredibale a person is if they can show some studies/facts then Im all ears but to simply flush because others say too isn't enough for me. 

But Im just the kind of person that doesn't sit on the sidelines and do what others say I have to find things out on my own and see facts to go with reasoning. I respect everyone who has tried flushing and claims they DO notice a difference. I don't know what works in their grow and what works in mine certainly wont work in theres. Maybe they do, we don't know but that's only like 1 or 2 people. Is everyone starting to see a trend? as hariken pointed out New growers flush because that's what everyone does (I was also included in this category), and most of the veteran growers here don't flush because they at one time attempted to not flush a plant and then realized it's a waste of human resources to flush gallons of water into your medium with no effect on final product.

speaking of wasting human resources did you know over 6000 children die everyday in Africa from not having access to clean water. Most villages, 3 out of 5 children don't live past 5. It takes the average human 6Litres of water a day to survive, just think if you stop flushing you could potential save liveS! (wondered off topic a bit) 

SO the way I look at it is not only am I not shorting my plants nutrients before harvest, wasting my time on dumping uneeded water in the medium but by me doing my part and not wasting a natural resource Im saving lives.

lol ok not first handidly but you get the idea. Is my theory of saving lives so different from the thought of rinsing out your buds? not really.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 7, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> troll thread. water is awful. the plant is done...more nutes!!


Look in the mirror. Why don't you drink nothing but water for two weeks and tell me how you feel? How does this help your plant?


----------



## KushDog (Jan 7, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Look in the mirror, troll. Why don't you drink nothing but water for two weeks and tell me how you feel? How does this help your plant?



SUPER MODELs dont eat are drink 2 weeks before the big show..... and they are smoking.... sorry I had too.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 7, 2012)

"SUPER MODELs dont eat are drink 2 weeks before the big show..... and they are smoking.... sorry I had too."

Ths is extremely irrelevant. First off all athletes carb up the day before. Models are only walking they don't need to exert energy. there also not healthy so comparing your buds to an unhealthy human probably isn't the best measure of quality.


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 7, 2012)

I was faily unimpressed with Jorge's response as well. I was hoping that someone of his "stature" would provide a little more than "Many uninformed people tell stories." I have nothing against the guy personally, hell I have his grow bible and used it many times in the past. I even used his video to teach me how to make bubble hash. I was disappointed that he did not bring anything constructive to the table, but I guess when you get a million e-mails a day from potheads it is probably hard to sit and go into detail with every response.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 7, 2012)

genuity said:


> hahaha,this is just too funny,.
> 
> have a mod taste your buds?what are you talking about?
> is that some kind of "threat"?
> ...


You made it about me and you when you flashed your $25 an eighth bud photo. It's clear you don't have a strong command of the English language, so I'm thinking you're not understanding half the things I'm saying. Why are continuing a discussion in a language you don't fully understand?


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 7, 2012)

Has anyone taken note that people who said they have tried both noticed no difference? By the way the bud porn from the members on this thread looks so good i had a semi. Good work boys


----------



## wbd (Jan 7, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Now the noob is tellig ME why MY BUD looks good?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## lordjin (Jan 7, 2012)

wbd said:


> The only person I see acting uncivil, calling names, etc. is you.
> 
> You're way out of line.


Yeah, but it's good reading. And it generates traffic. And whether I'm out of line or not doesn't change the fact that there's good information in my posts.


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 7, 2012)

Does anyone wanna see my unflushed weed, Hello anyone there lol


----------



## wbd (Jan 7, 2012)

rocpilefsj said:


> I was faily unimpressed with Jorge's response as well. I was hoping that someone of his "stature" would provide a little more than "Many uninformed people tell stories." I have nothing against the guy personally, hell I have his grow bible and used it many times in the past. I even used his video to teach me how to make bubble hash. I was disappointed that he did not bring anything constructive to the table, but I guess when you get a million e-mails a day from potheads it is probably hard to sit and go into detail with every response.


Well 2 things... one, if Jorge HAD elaborated would he have compelled anyone to change their mind? I mean, he's already constantly discredited and called the equivalent of a cannabis ghost writer of sorts, and not a firsthand authority on the subject.

Also, I think this subject is so irrelevant in a practical sense and not easy to demonstrate either side of the debate, he's probably not terribly passionate about defending his own personal conclusion. And we kind of know already that he wouldn't have much to back it (flushing) up with anyhow...

I guess I'm not surprised that he didn't have much to say.


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 7, 2012)

I feel like a elementary school teacher... Off topic posts and fighting will not be tolerated, for the millionth time.

SirLancelot made this thread and I'm sure he doesn't appreciate it getting hijacked.


----------



## lordjin (Jan 7, 2012)

rocpilefsj said:


> I feel like a elementary school teacher... Off topic posts and fighting will not be tolerated, for the millionth time.
> 
> SirLancelot made this thread and I'm sure he doesn't appreciate it getting hijacked.


Okay, sorry. I'll stop.

I respectfully agree with the OP that flushing is not a good thing. The end.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 7, 2012)

wbd said:


> Well 2 things... one, if Jorge HAD elaborated would he have compelled anyone to change their mind? I mean, he's already constantly discredited and called the equivalent of a cannabis ghost writer of sorts, and not a firsthand authority on the subject.
> 
> Also, I think this subject is so irrelevant in a practical sense and not easy to demonstrate either side of the debate, he's probably not terribly passionate about defending his own personal conclusion. And we kind of know already that he wouldn't have much to back it (flushing) up with anyhow...
> 
> I guess I'm not surprised that he didn't have much to say.


Thats the point HE ISN'T a firsthand authority, ask Uncle Ben, he's credited in the grow bible for correcting a few of Cervantes inaccuracies.


----------



## genuity (Jan 7, 2012)

lordjin said:


> You made it about me and you when you flashed your $25 an eighth bud photo. It's clear you don't have a strong command of the English language, so I'm thinking you're not understanding half the things I'm saying. Why are continuing a discussion in a language you don't fully understand?


^^^i dont know what to say about this!
im just not the one to step down to your level,as a mod that would look bad on my part,so ill let what ever mod,that is moding,do what they do.

how to get back on topic?


----------



## sadielady (Jan 7, 2012)

lordjin said:


> Cali fuckin' rules, dude. We're leading the charge and setting the standard for medical marijuana in the United States.


Sounds like someone hasn't left Cali in a while-the golden state is falling behind in quality of medicine as well as advancements in the cause.


----------



## Afka (Jan 7, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> Thats the point HE ISN'T a firsthand authority, ask Uncle Ben, he's credited in the grow bible for correcting a few of Cervantes inaccuracies.


Uncle Ben and innacuracies, yeah those go hand in hand. Misconceptions and conventional agriculture dogma != truth.


----------



## VanishingToaster (Jan 7, 2012)

y'know when a thread reaches that point where its covered everything (couple hundred posts ago) and just needs to die?


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 7, 2012)

VanishingToaster said:


> y'know when a thread reaches that point where its covered everything (couple hundred posts ago) and just needs to die?


There's still a few toilet-horticulturalists left man...but it's ok, they're dying off.


----------



## SlimJim503 (Jan 7, 2012)

Book jockers got to love em ima write a book a guide to a healthy and full life. Inside i will describe the process of eating one owns shit and will state if done correctly one may live to be 300 years old. Bet i can have half of those on this thread jocking me nuts before a decade has gone past also i will be releasing a new product a tube from ones ass to his mouth so we can tell all the jockers by the shit smell coming out of their mouth


----------



## wbd (Jan 7, 2012)

SlimJim503 said:


> Book jockers got to love em ima write a book a guide to a healthy and full life. Inside i will describe the process of eating one owns shit and will state if done correctly one may live to be 300 years old. Bet i can have half of those on this thread jocking me nuts before a decade has gone past also i will be releasing a new product a tube from ones ass to his mouth so we can tell all the jockers by the shit smell coming out of their mouth


You're really going to insult someone for reading a book?

If there was a book that instructed you NOT to flush, it would have been referenced 100 times already in this thread alone. Give me a break!


----------



## theinhibitor (Jan 7, 2012)

In my experience you either go lightly on nutes (usually half strength) or you go 3/4 to full strength and flush final 1-2 weeks. Lightly on the nutes followed by a 3-4 day flush is what has worked for me. I also chop at the base and put the plant in a vase for a night before I trim and hang it to dry. Whether or not any of this does something, the smoke is very smooth and tasty so I am going to stick with what I do. 

However, people here tend to think that flushing does one of the following:
1. Does nothing
2. Kills your plant
3. Starves your plant

Besides stating the obvious that killing something usually evokes SOME response, your plant is dieing anyways. Thats why you changed the light cycle to 12/12. To make your plant go through its sexual cycle and then (sometimes) die. Stressing your plants light cycle does in fact speed up the fruiting/flowering process since your plant thinks its going to die sooner (because the days are getting really short which would mean dead of winter in nature). Thus, flushing your plants is basically doing the same thing since nute uptake in winter slows to a halt anyhow. People who keep track of their ppms should notice that it takes the plants longer to uptake nutes in the final stages of flowering than in the initial stages (right after the boost in height). So flushing isn't a bad thing at all. In fact, one could say it mimics the natural life-cycle of the plant much better than not flushing.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 7, 2012)

shrigpiece said:


> Does anyone wanna see my unflushed weed, Hello anyone there lol


Yes please! That's what this thread was intended for


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 7, 2012)

Rumple said:


> A few of you claimed that the only ones who are in favor of flushing before harvest are the ones who have not tried it both ways. My first post was that I have tried not flushing and it effected the taste. I have seen a few others post the same thing.
> 
> I have a few other books here by other authors who say to flush. Would it help if I posted pictures of the text. Or would you all just try and make the author look dumb?
> Like I said:
> ...


I here ya man, and your one of the few who have found out for yourself, +rep. no need to post we all know their there. I've got/read/stillread through many of them. I just stopped because I never noticed a difference... 



VanishingToaster said:


> y'know when a thread reaches that point where its covered everything (couple hundred posts ago) and just needs to die?


lol were about there.



wbd said:


> You're really going to insult someone for reading a book?
> 
> If there was a book that instructed you NOT to flush, it would have been referenced 100 times already in this thread alone. Give me a break!


very good point! and I don't have an answer for that the only reason I stopped flushing is because I never noticed a difference and that's what I want to know is why? but I realize I will never find that out. One thing I was thinking though think about how many people are writing books on cannabis, not many compared to say another topic even one that is legal so proper studies can be done on a large scale in completely controlled environments by actual people with PHD's (I prefer to get information from authors who have one, something about the credibility). Im not sure what the requirments are to right a book on cannabis Im taking a huge guess here but I don't even know if the publishers asked for scientific sources for their information if it even mattered, I could write a book about anything and if a publisher thinks it will sell they'll make it. That's why you look for books written by people with PHD's. I'd guess most of the information in these books is knowledge that's been passed down and around for many many years which Im not arguing isn't accurate as I believe most of it is. another thing to consider is how would they have even been able to prove the chems were in the bud and causing taste differences back in the day? did they have the technology to do that? do we now? I could be completely wrong but to believe books written on cannabis are scientifically valid is a little far fetched considering it's illegal (not saying there isn't valid information on plenty of illegal topics)and harder to run large controlled expirements on. What im trying to say is I read these books still, but to use them as a bible to the only way to grow and expecting all of their information to be completely accurate is asking alot considering the topic. But Im gonna grow how I grow and everyone else will grow how they grow at the end of the day whos gives a shit were all stoned smoking good nugs.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 7, 2012)

Just think of all the retarded athletes and celebs who write books and sell millions, does that mean everything said is true? 

just hear me out, what if just what if their was a possibility their information was wrong? their was never a committe put into place to check the credibility of what they were saying as it was being put into the books. This has been known to happen in history quit often. 

Jumping off topic: did you know that NO ONE ever thought the earth was flat. Aristotle was one of the first to mention the earth was a sphere made up of 7 rings (I think) although we now know the universe is way different now. Anyways the point is in most if not all history text books FOR SCHOOLS they put in them that christopher columbus set sail thinking the earth was flat, most of us were raised to believe this as well. But it is completely false and the only account of people thinking the world was flat was by like to germans who were psychotic and wrote a book of ramblings. Just pointing out that some information in text books isn't completely accurate.

Sorry for that off topic point. But it's people like me who contend the tradition that has been going on for so many years without questioning that gets to a real answer and maybe even causes an actual study to take place to solve this once and for all. although unlikely.

were all pioneers... lol ok the unflushed blueberry/whitewidow blunt has gotten too me.


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 8, 2012)

1 Lemon Skunk, 2 Orange Bud, 3 Northern lights Auto


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 8, 2012)

shrigpiece said:


> 1 Lemon Skunk, 2 Orange Bud, 3 Northern lights Auto


But they're all full of "chemicals"! J/k, sorry, couldn't resist. I'd definately smoke em!

Has anyone considered the fact they may have gotten "chemmed up" bud or bud that burns badly cos the grower could've been foliar feeding in flower or using pesticides on the bud? That'd explain how people can not flush and have great bud and others have swag. Perhaps the not flushing was a false causation for some grower's other mistakes?


----------



## Afka (Jan 8, 2012)

My flushed hydro taste has a bite to it
My unflushed organic doesent


OH.
DAMN.

(Ammoniacal N in late flowering = harsh)


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

lol rumple your lil man in your picture is awesome!!

oh yes and your bud  looks very yummy!!


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

You all hear me on the book thing though right? I mean we can't hold them on a pedistol their more of a guideline than an actual recipe.


----------



## OBMF (Jan 8, 2012)

Agreed. I learned much from reading from rosenthals book. growing and reading in these forums has allowed me to gain experience that has gone against some of the practices that aren't correct, aren't fully elaborated on, or aren't even mentioned in rosenthals book. But it serves as pot 101 fo sure.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

OBMF said:


> Agreed. I learned much from reading from rosenthals book. growing and reading in these forums has allowed me to gain experience that has gone against some of the practices that aren't correct, aren't fully elaborated on, or aren't even mentioned in rosenthals book. But it serves as pot 101 fo sure.


Hell I still flip through the books! but the best experience as someone pointed out earlier is first hand experience. Nothing beats it. 

as much as I want to get away from this I have a feeling Im still going to be doing flushing experiements constantly... Wish I knew a way to control the variables better and actual come out with an outcome that others see but taste is just one of those things that varys from person to person. "I think I taste a citrusy flavor" "I taste a berry flavor" "Nah I taste a tangy funky fruit" 

All I taste is chronic nug, and nug varies in taste from strain to strain, there's more to the flavor of smoke than we truly understand. 
Like when drinking wine everyone tastes the hickory, or a berry flavor, etc... what about grapes? lol that's what I taste differences in grapes processed differently.


----------



## rocknratm (Jan 8, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> Just think of all the retarded athletes and celebs who write books and sell millions, does that mean everything said is true?
> 
> just hear me out, what if just what if their was a possibility their information was wrong? their was never a committe put into place to check the credibility of what they were saying as it was being put into the books. This has been known to happen in history quit often.
> 
> ...


the church supported the idea of the flat earth. side note flat earth great brewing co

I have found-
greg green grow bible (best)
cervantes (good, but has hearsay)
Rosenthol (sp) from what you all say is alot like cervantes.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

rocknratm said:


> the church supported the idea of the flat earth. side note flat earth great brewing co
> 
> I have found-
> greg green grow bible (best)
> ...


Very good point but one thing about the bible is it never changes, If they have false information it stays they won't go back on what they say. But you may be correct I don't remember in the bible it saying that but it could be possible. I only brought that up because in college I had a history professor who absolutly HATED textbooks and the reason was for all the false information in them including the earth was flat theory. He even brought in resources to prove that no one thought the earth was flat.. Wish I woulda paid a lil more attention, didn't think I'd ever have to repeat it lol. But I just did a quick search and found this:BeHereNow wrote: 
I made the observation that many years ago virtually all individuals and groups had the belief that the earth was flat. The point being, or the question raised, was this, in 350 A.D., an absurd belief. ​My understanding is that most educated people of that time understood the earth was spherical, as determined by the ancient greeks, but that the common man did not. Undoubtedly some found their proof in the bible (good luck getting two xtians to agree on what the bible says) and some simply relied on what seemed "obvious", empirically.BeHereNow wrote: 
My opponent says that the earth being flat was not a &#8216;belief&#8217; at all, absurd or otherwsise.
He says &#8221; It was not a "belief" that the world was flat. It was a limit of the observations of the time. You are not using the word belief as it applies to religious beliefs.&#8221;.. ​All we need to do is agree on definition(s) for belief to resolve this. Believing in a God with no evidence (the god of the gaps argument is not evidence) is completely different than "believing" something for which you have objective, empirical evidence. Newton was technically both right and wrong about gravity; his calculations are useful for everyday calculations but Einstein provided refinements that are useful at another level. 

From wikipedia on celestial spheres (founded by In Greek antiquity the ideas of celestial spheres and rings first appeared in the cosmology of Anaximander in the early 6th century BC.[SUP][7][/SUP] In his cosmology both the Sun and Moon are circular open vents in tubular rings of fire enclosed in tubes of condensed air that constitute the rims of rotating chariot-like wheels pivoting on the Earth at their centre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
They actually go into detail of the study of the spherical earth throughout history ie. antiquity and middle ages.

NOw of course they were wrong about the make up of the universe but we've known the earth was a sphere a long long time ago. This example is perfect not only does it explain the flat earth theory but it points out that NEWTON was right and wrong! meaning that this guy who wrote a book had some stuff that wasn't true it it! hhmmm

I don't want this to turn into a religion thread at all, it's a very touchy subject and everyone has theirs views which I ask should be respected. I personally do go to church (try every sunday usually every other) I've taken many theology courses in college as well. But I personally can't hold the bible completly accurate especially the new testament. The old testiment seems more "Original" than the new were the church has stepped in and wrote it based off of ancient scriptures and stories. I had a priest one time who believed in the big bang theory, I KNOW fucking wild needless to say it was a sweet class. It was on the history of Jesus but one thing about his course was he believed in teaching us everything! including the many gospels and stories of jesus that were excluded from the bible because it either gave Jesus too much of a human like characteristics or they felt it wasn't supporting their overall image of Jesus and the church. Have you ever noticed we dont' know anything about the person of Jesus. Yes we know he did traveling, had 12 disciples, performed miracles and prayers but nothing about him personally, Our teacher(priest) claimed the church found the information unneccessary to the overall picture because they wanted to keep jesus as divine as possible. Im just repeating what he said... it's interesting and very true too. 

I will argue that the bible says sodomy is bad and is an act of homosexuality. I slilghly asked the father of one of my theology classes about this and asked what if a man has anal sex with his wife. He said that it is an act of homosexuality. Ok but whenever I get the chance, (not very often) to fuck my girl in the ass I don't feel gay at all! So according to the bible Im a homo, but my girl can vouche otherwise.

and flat earth great brewing co is a marketing scheme you can't hold a beer company accountable for being accurate.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

Heres an article I found: http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

The Bible says: The Earth is flat!
The sections of this article are: 
- The Bible says: The Earth is flat! 
*- The flat Earth is established and can never move?! The Sun hurries back to where
it rises?! 
*- The Earth has pillars?! 
- The Earth has Edges?! The wicked might get shaken off of it and fall off in 
space?! 
- Does Isaiah 40:22 really say that Earth is Round? The Earth is a flat circle?!
*- Christian Theologians' Commentaries that further suggest that the Earth 
is flat. 
*- The light of the Universe and the flat earth's dimensions in the Bible.
- Conclusion. 
When it comes to scientific claims, the Bible has been known to be wrong, no offense to any Jewish, Christian, Catholic, or whatever religions are out there. The Bible claims that Earth has four ends and four corners. Nobody can ever think a ball or a cycle to have corners and ends! Only flat items can have corners and ends, and this is exactly what the bible is trying to express regarding the shape of the earth. The earth is not flat, as once thought and it has no corners or ends at all. If Magnetic Poles can be taken as ends or corners of earth, then this definitely opposed to the axis of rotation. 
Genesis 11:1-9
The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 
2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 
4 Then they said, *"Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens,* so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 
6 *The LORD said*, "If as one people speaking the same language *they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be **impossible for them.* 
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 
9 That is why it was called Babel &#8212;because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
Not only these verses are *seriously very insulting* to Allah Almighty because they present Him as a GOD who feared men, but they also reveal *a very serious scientific blunder* through suggesting that the earth is both flat and sitting still in the universe - something that is quite contrary to what the Holy Quran teaches. 

Isaiah 11:12 
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the *FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.* (KJV) 
Revelation 7:1 
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on *FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH,* holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV) 
Job 38:13 
13 That it might take hold of the *ENDS OF THE EARTH,* that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV) 
Jeremiah 16:19 
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the *ENDS OF THE EARTH,* and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV) 
Daniel 4:11 
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the *ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:* (KJV) 
Matthew 4:8 
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV) 
Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed. 

The flat Earth is established and can never move?! The Sun hurries back to where it rises?!
The Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 verses from the Bible in this section were sent to me by Abdullah Bisyir; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him. 
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)" 
"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world [The deceiving translators should've said *"earth"*, not "world"] is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 93:1)" 
"Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world [Again, the deceiving translators should've said *"earth"*, not "world"] is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 96:10)" 
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)" 
Well, I don't think there is any need for much explanation to the nonsense above! It is crystal clear that the Bible is full of man-made corruptions and alterations. Since when the Earth is flat and can never move?! We all know that the Earth and the other planets rotate and move in space around the Sun. Since when the Sun hurries back to where it rises, like if there is some hole it rises from and another hole it sets through on Earth?! 
For those Jews and Christians who would like to see where in the Noble Quran does Allah Almighty say that the planets in space rotate and move, read the following Noble Verse: 
"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)" 
For more information and other Noble Verses, please visit: 
Science in the Noble Quran and Islam.
The Earth is round according to Islam.

The Earth has pillars?! 
"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)" 
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:4)" 

The Earth has Edges?! 
"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)" 
"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)" 
"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)" 
"Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)" 

Does Isaiah 40:22 really say that Earth is Round? 
It is quite clear that the above Biblical Verses suggest and claim that the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations. No unbiased person would deny the straight forward quotes above. Only the desperate biased Jews and Christians would. 
Some desperate Christians have gone as far as presenting Isaiah 40:22 to try to prove that the Bible claims that the earth is round. 
Let us look at what the Verse says: 
"He sits enthroned above the *circle of the earth*, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)" 
First of all, a circle is not a ball or sphere or an egg-shaped object. A circle is a flat round surface, similar to flat rectangular, or square, or triangular surfaces. So if the Bible claims that the Earth is a circle, then this is still bogus because the earth is obviously not a flat surface. 
We have two conditions here: 
1- Isaiah 40:22 is claiming that the Earth is a flat circle. 
2- Isaiah 40:22 is claiming that the Earth has a circle above it. 
If we were to take condition #1, then we are left with a clear and irrefutable contradiction between Isaiah 40:22 and some of the Bible's verses that I mentioned above in the article, because a flat circle doesn't have "four corners", and ironically in either case, we still have a scientifically false claim about the Earth's shape. 
IF we were to take condition #2, then it doesn't prove that the Earth is an egg-shaped figure, and Isaiah 40:22 surely becomes irrelevant to this subject. 
One thing is for sure clear, and that is Isaiah 40:22 is obviously ambiguous and not clear if we wish to prove from it that the Earth is not flat and is egg-shaped. If we look at what the entire Bible says (as presented above by all the Verses) about the shape of the Earth as the Roman Catholic Church did in the past, then we would reach the same conclusion they reached, and that is: The Earth is Flat!
Certainly, when Christopher Columbus thought that he could reach India by going west in the Atlantic ocean instead of east as it was traditionally done, the Church in Europe was afraid that he will eventually reach the "end of the earth" and the "Edges of the earth" as the Bible clearly says above, and fall off into the space and die. 
After he was able to convince the Queen that the adventure was worth the try, Christopher Columbus had survived several assassination attempts while he and his people were sailing in the ocean, because his Christian Church-believing mates were afraid and wanted to go back. 
When he finally found America, he thought he reached India. That's why the North American Continent was called "India", and the Native Americans were called "Red Indians". 
This is at least what I learned from my "US History" class when I was in High School. 

Christian Theologians' Commentaries that further suggest that the Earth is flat: 
The following is an email I received from brother Mohammed; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him. 
Subj: (no subject)
Date: 4/24/02 8:22:58 AM Central Daylight Time
From: [email protected] 
To: [email protected] 
Assalamu alaikum Dear brother 
Look at this Pre-scientific view: Ancient Pagan religions in the Mediterranean area and Middle East taught that the universe was quite tiny. Earth is more or less flat, like a dinner plate. Mountains around the edges held up a rigid dome which formed the sky. The sun, moon, planets and stars traveled across the underside of the dome of the sky on a daily basis. God sits on his throne in Heaven, which lies above the canopy. This applies to Isaiah 40:22. 
The site that is talking about this is at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl.htm 
Further on we now have refuted those layman scholars who say the word in Isaiah means a Globe: EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN scholars who agree that Isaiah 40:22 does NOT speak of a spherical earth. There are even Evangelical publishers of books and Bible commentaries who do NOT teach that Isaiah 40:22 speaks of a spherical earth. BAKER BOOKS and evangelical publisher published the following book about Isaiah 40:22: 
What You Know Might Not Be So: 220 Misinterpretations of Bible Texts Explained by David C. Downing Paperback (September 1987) Baker Book House; ISBN: 0801029759. 
And EVANGELICALS now have a commentary on Genesis available which takes the ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis seriously. It is Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary by John H. Walton (past professor of OT at Moody Bible Institute, and now at Wheaton),published by Zondervan, 2001. 
Although it is not a technical commentary like Gordon Wenham's, it is a solid scholarly piece of work. 759 pages, nearly half of which deal with Genesis 1-11. Paul Seely, an Evangelical scholar, has even written a paper that was published in the WESTMINSTER REVIEW (an EVANGELICAL college), in which he says the following: 
The Geographical Meaning of Earth Seas in Genesis 1:10 
by Paul Seely: 
"There is one verse in the OT, however, which has often been cited at least by laymen as a proof that the earth was understood to be a globe. I refer to Isaiah 40:22 which speaks of God as the One sitting above the circle of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word *(hug)* or in the context which necessarily implies anything more than the *circularity of the flat earth-disc* which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 *(dur)*, meaning 'ball.' " 
For as E. J. Young noted, Isaiah 40:22 describes God as seated on the zenith, the highest point directly overhead. Thus the verse implies that earth's dwellers, all mankind according to Psalm 33:13, 14, are clearly visible from a very high point directly overhead. This imagery fits most naturally the conception of the earth below as a flat disc, not a globe. For if the earth were a globe, part of all mankind namely earth's dwellers in Australia, Argentina, South Africa, etc... could not be seen from a point directly overhead. One could force the issue by appealing to God's omniscience, but Isaiah 40:22 (as well as the other verses which mention God looking down) is focused on God's height above the earth; and his seeing all mankind is derived from that height. That phrase "the circle of the earth" in no way implies sphericity is confirmed by the fact that in Egypt this phrase was used to refer to the earth as a flat circular disc. So when interpreted within its historical and biblical context Isaiah 40:22 implies indeed that the earth is circular in shape but also that it is flat. 


hhhmmmm How to get back on topic now thats out of the way lol....


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

One thing I was always taught in theology classes were that the bible and Jesus' teaching were merely guidelines to how to live a proper christian life, Jesus never left blueprints for how the church was suppose to be nor how people were suppose to act. We base his preachings and miracles as a basis of how to live life which is only through LOVE. The bible was never meant to be followed word for word, its a summary and we are suppose to live our lives out like jesus which isn't performing miracles and wondering around preaching, its living life with LOVE and helping others. 

Ok Im done sorry. this is about to turn religious and it's my fault.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

Rumple said:


> If the above was true: Why would we ever read a book? About anything?
> I have most of the books about growing Marijuana. About 80% to 90% of the information in all of them concurs from one book to another. I don't agree that most grow books and guides are worthless or should be taken as mostly hear-say. I have found some to be spot on.
> 
> Lets take Jorge Cervantes as an example: He travels the world visiting grow operations, talking to thousands of growers. managing his own green house, and sampling some of the very best bud grown on this earth.
> ...


what up rumple, I didn't mean to say that their information is wrong I must have stated that incorrectly. I totally agree that 90% if not most of all the information is correct. Im just saying how hard is it to get all the information needed and how hard is it to perform multiple labratory experiments on Marijuana, can't be that easy. like compared to a book on another plant that has been able to be studied in labratories. Im not discrediting the authors I use their books OFTEN! but my point is not everything in books is correct. Example: flat earth theory, and Newtons calculations on gravity which weren't corrected untill Einstein proved differently. I hear ya on your wife and you are one of the few who notices a difference but like you said your set up is different from mine or others and what works for you certainly isn't the best for me and what works best for me certainly isn't for you. But my point is what kind of screening went into the information in the books Im not saying its wrong by any means! but what if theres the slight chance they just don't know about the differences in flushing so they just put to flush because thats what everyone has done and does and didn't want to risk harresy from the community for doing it differently because he or anyone else would have a really hard time disproving the flushing theory so maybe out of ease its just added because that's the norm. I'm only challenging the norm because I've noticed no difference. And I would love to try your nugs! and have you try mine but I bet we wouldn't get anything resolved except get stoned and clean out my cuboards. lol


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

Rumple said:


> What the heck are you posting?
> 
> Dude....


lol I got a lil carried away with someone using the bible as credibility to the earth being flat.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Do you need a PHD to know the stuff you grow is killer? The very best information and breakthroughs on wine making came from grape farmers and wine makers. I will go with the farmer before Mr.Spock.
> 
> Have books given out bad information? You bet, but lets not go out and burn the whole lot.


completely agree! and I will continue to use the information in the books but why is it so absurd of me to question? and ask for evidence? I remember growing up my mom would always till the garden to "loosen up the soil which made plants grow better" but Im now reading a book 'teaming with the microbes' that says the opposite of tradition because you have an intricate soil food web living and breaking it up only slows them down. so which do I follow here? this is another example of a research I set out to find out for myself.

Dude why are you knockin books written by people with PHD's. I apologize if i made it sound like only people with doctrates can right useful books as this isn't the case or what I intended at all but to hold a book written by a marijuana guru with no docteral education in plant biology as scientific isn't completely sound either.


----------



## Rumple (Jan 8, 2012)

> why is it so absurd of me to question? and ask for evidence?


Who said it was?


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Who said it was?


lol ok no one, I assumed (made an ass out of me and well me) I just felt like i had to go on the defense for a moment. I never meant to say their info is wrong in books its just history has proven it possible. and since in my personal experience I never noticed a difference I just wondered why and how this original theory was taken into account and how they were able to figure out it's nutrients in buds causing that taste. 

Im just curious I know your wife noticed a difference which plays a very big role in growing lol as my girl has somewhat of a say (already covered) What Im wondering is did you ever notice a differnce? And I honestly am probably not the best one to be starting/continueing this converstaion on pre-harvest flushing as I have only grown soil and don't know the outcomes of hydro. 

One thing I really would love to find out if anyone is still reading. What would it take to be able to figure this out? I know they have equipment you can use to check plant tissue and stuff but is it even possible to check nutrient levels in buds and corrolate that with taste? 

beating a dead horse...


----------



## Rumple (Jan 8, 2012)

I have never smoked anything I have grown.


----------



## wbd (Jan 8, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> You all hear me on the book thing though right? I mean we can't hold them on a pedistol their more of a guideline than an actual recipe.


Agreed 100%. But same applies to anything said here by some RIU member, so it's funny to hear folks discredit Cervantes, etc. then expect me to listen to them instead. I mean, ANYBODY can create an RIU account and start posting here.

But for me, I never read any of those books and take everything I read here with a grain of salt. But you don't see me putting down published authors either, mostly because I never read their books...

People will listen to whatever feeds their own beliefs, that's why I say if Cervantes was insisting that flushing was bad it would have been cited here 100X by now, it's not the author it's really his opinion that non-flushing folks take issue with.


----------



## wbd (Jan 8, 2012)

Rumple said:


> They can't send coffee samples to a PHD to make the best blend. It will be hard to convince me that we can't know good weed without a masters degree.


Yup, and you can't disprove that someone finds a difference in taste between flushed and unflushed bud. I get tired of hearing otherwise even though I didn't find a difference in taste myself...

And no, I don't need to know exactly how a plant works at the molecular level to get thru a harvest with great success. Just took a few tries before I got it right is all. 

Experience is everything.


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

Rumple said:


> I have never smoked anything I have grown.


ohh I didn't realize, so you just grow for the wifey? what a nice guy lol keep her on an even keal I get ya! haha 



wbd said:


> Agreed 100%. But same applies to anything said here by some RIU member, so it's funny to hear folks discredit Cervantes, etc. then expect me to listen to them instead. I mean, ANYBODY can create an RIU account and start posting here.
> 
> But for me, I never read any of those books and take everything I read here with a grain of salt. But you don't see me putting down published authors either, mostly because I never read their books...
> 
> People will listen to whatever feeds their own beliefs, that's why I say if Cervantes was insisting that flushing was bad it would have been cited here 100X by now, it's not the author it's really his opinion that non-flushing folks take issue with.



WBD I like you here, you don't flush yet stand up to the non flushers questioning the reasoning which is exactly what we all need! unbiased information sharing. It's contending views and statements of others that leads us to a conclusion although one is very unlikly here as we've already pointed out it would be nearly impossible to accomplish.

haha dude your so right about the forum, hell the fact that were 50pages in on my thread that was intended to get a rise out of people more than discover facts, when I clearly don't have any botony experience and have only grown MJ for a few years, compared to others who have been growing over 10! is funny too me but this has turned out to be WAY more informational than I could have ever thought of, hell when I started growing I wish this thread was around I never see good arguments like done here. When I first arrived here a couple years ago (went under a different name, paranoa got to me one day) I thought everyone here was so awesome because of the knowledge everyone had, untill I realized the knowledge thats passed around here is like playing telephone with 30 people. By the time it reaches the end you wonder how the hell it even got so different?! I've frequently came across threads with some of the most outragous advise for a new grower, I used to try and correct it now I just shake my head and leave. 

hows it go... first hand experience is everything!


----------



## OldLuck (Jan 8, 2012)

If you use a athlete, use a bodybuilder. They flush the last couple of weeks to get all the chemicals/fats out there system so the skin can show off all there define muscles. I would think that flushing would be the same way taking out all the last bit of nutes that flushing actually gets to so your buds will be a little more refined. I'm just thinking out loud and i'm very new to all of this.



SirLancelot said:


> By far the best answer I've heard!! very good point and to answer it prolly doesn't.
> I just don't like the idea of starving my plant in the last weeks of life.
> 
> If your an athelete training for the olympics why would you spend all that time getting ready just to starve yourself in the last weeks before the event. seems counter productive Idk I could be very wrong but I doubt it. I understand how plants uptake nutrients and I know chemicals are not hanging out inside the buds. Why spend months keeping em up so well just to fuck with em at the end? I just prefer to keep em green, healthy and happy. I think when you flush and your plants turn all yellow and leaves fall off it looks disguisting and like it's dying. In my MANY MANY years of experience with gardening I know NO plants look like this when fruiting, My veggies always are full green and healthy. (except for my pumpkins this year, they got some wierd fungus on all leaves) I had a tomato plant that was all yellow wilted and shity the fruit from it was shitty as well. I guess I just corrospond dying plants with a shitty end product.


----------



## wbd (Jan 8, 2012)

SirLancelot said:


> haha dude your so right about the forum, hell the fact that were 50pages in on my thread that was intended to get a rise out of people more than discover facts, when I clearly don't have any botony experience and have only grown MJ for a few years, compared to others who have been growing over 10! is funny too me but this has turned out to be WAY more informational than I could have ever thought of, hell when I started growing I wish this thread was around I never see good arguments like done here. When I first arrived here a couple years ago (went under a different name, paranoa got to me one day) I thought everyone here was so awesome because of the knowledge everyone had, untill I realized the knowledge thats passed around here is like playing telephone with 30 people. By the time it reaches the end you wonder how the hell it even got so different?! I've frequently came across threads with some of the most outragous advise for a new grower, I used to try and correct it now I just shake my head and leave.


Trying to rid the internets of bad information is futile. And not even necessary, really...

RIU and all the other grow forums are an aggregate of information, you cannot listen to just 1 person you listen to 100 and see if a single answer that makes sense to you stands out.

And the general rule is: the more widely disputed something is, the less it probably matters. I mean, you don't read too many 52 pagers about whether plants need sunlight or not.


----------



## donmagicjuan (Jan 8, 2012)

shrigpiece said:


> 1 Lemon Skunk, 2 Orange Bud, 3 Northern lights Auto


looks ok just dont smoke it


----------



## SirLancelot (Jan 8, 2012)

Rumple said:


> I was growing and donating for three card holders at one point in time. One moved away and I built grow rooms for the other two.
> 
> FYI: I always make new growers that I get setup start out with soil grows. The folks that grow with Vic's Super Soil don't flush (no need to). Hydro growing is another story.


aah nice...

What is so different about nute uptake from soil to hydro? Ive heard you can get plants to grow bigger faster and are done sooner in hydro, why is that? Doesn't the roots take up the nutes the same or does it know theres a difference in mediums? These may be retarded questions (don't do hydro, love the smell of earth) or is it theres just more oxygen to the roots which makes them work better? The reason I ask is because Im curious to know what the differences in flushing are and why their is a difference. sorry if it feels im questioning you if anyone has an answer I'd love to hear it.


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 9, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> looks ok just dont smoke it


Maybe i should put it in a glass case. Chems should preserve the bud


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 9, 2012)

donmagicjuan said:


> looks ok just dont smoke it


Yeah, cos you, the guy who can't tell the difference between Mag deficiency, Potassium deficiency and nutrient burn are clearly the oracle and authority now.


----------



## AzCannaMan (Jan 22, 2012)

Gastanker said:


> What other industries use the same ridiculously high amount of fertilizers to produce their crops? None... How many of these non existent industries produce a material you combust and then inhale? None...


Tobacco, prob use a shit load (Im guessing at that part) of nutrients, and they most def "produce a material you combust and then inhale". They dont flush as someone else pointed out.


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 22, 2012)

AzCannaMan said:


> Tobacco, prob use a shit load (Im guessing at that part) of nutrients, and they most def "produce a material you combust and then inhale". They dont flush as someone else pointed out.


Don't try using logic, "some guy" told them to flush so theyll keep doing it even tho it doesn't make a lick of sense and no other industry does it. 

Bizarre that Final Flush (a cannabis specific product) is a mixture of 95.5% water and 4.5% glucose and fructose, that should be proof enough but people are just stupid.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Jan 22, 2012)

go water a orchid the same way you feed you weed, bet it will die . . . . . .. street logic takes a back seat to science, and it will some day when some ass hole with a PHD decides to do real research not sugar coated shti to prove what they already think 
\
until then any one person who picks a side other than "this is what i do and why i *think* its right" is a fool


----------



## coughee420 (Jan 23, 2012)

I think flushing is for toilets


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 23, 2012)

Do we really have to start arguing about this again? There is nothing in this thread that hasn't been beaten to death already but people still need to keep bumping it back to the top of the page?


----------



## wbd (Jan 23, 2012)

coughee420 said:


> I think flushing is for toilets


How can you comment when you've never even harvested an MJ plant before?


----------



## wbd (Jan 23, 2012)

rocpilefsj said:


> Do we really have to start arguing about this again? There is nothing in this thread that hasn't been beaten to death already but people still need to keep bumping it back to the top of the page?


Cmon dude you know this argument will never die, in this thread or the next...


----------



## mr. green thumb 01 (Jan 23, 2012)

All of these plants have been starved..Do they look hungry to you? Starved coca cola size buds...? My last starved plant was 166grams dried and cured off about 2.5-3ft tall! which is not rare! mmmm.. go new york purple diesel


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Rumple said:


> Jorge Cervantes said all the cup growers flush without exception, Greg Green and Ed Rosenthol both say to flush. Three guys that have been around more then a few grow operations. The three of them talk to thousands of top notch growers from all over the world. Why would all the growers they know lie to them?
> Why do I doubt that anyone here knows more then the three of them?
> Get out and publish a few million books then visit a few thousand grow rooms. When your done, come tell us how it is.
> 
> ...


With all due respect, why should we listen to all these growers from the 60s and 70s? This is 2012 man! Things are different.

Hey mom look at me! I'm coolz because I flush like Jorge! Like Jorge mom!

And check your grammar man. I highlighted your errors. "Then" is a place in time, not a comparison, there you'd want to use "than". "Your" shows ownership. "You're" means "you are".


----------



## Harrekin (Jan 24, 2012)

mr. green thumb 01 said:


> All of these plants have been starved..Do they look hungry to you? Starved coca cola size buds...? My last starved plant was 166grams dried and cured off about 2.5-3ft tall! which is not rare! mmmm.. go new york purple diesel


Looks like a very high leaf to calyx ratio, they look like outdoor plants...maybe you should've fed till the end? Lol.


----------



## markybuds (Jan 24, 2012)

i'm in bubbleponics and i flush with plain water for 2 days every 3-4 weeks for salt build-up in the root mass. one thing i do do.. is i reduce the nitrogen i feed in the last few weeks. there arent chemicals in the buds. if you do a tight manicure job there should be barely any sugarleaf on your buds. starving a plant at its most vital stage is ridiculous  there are some nutrients that are not mobile and cant be supplied by the leaves themselves. 

you guys can make the argument .... you'll just never make sense 

happy growing


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Hows the bubbleponics work out for you in early veg? I have heard that is it much faster than DWC. In my experience, DWC worked the fastest for me in the early stages, _then_ soil-less mixes, _then_ regular soil, which I have quit altogether 3 years ago.

I am experimenting with coco right now, and just finished my highest yield ever, a DWC grow, and prior, I used Promix for a couple years with great results.

I plan to go full time DWC in the next months, much less messy. 



markybuds said:


> i'm in bubbleponics and i flush with plain water for 2 days every 3-4 weeks for salt build-up in the root mass. one thing i do do.. is i reduce the nitrogen i feed in the last few weeks. there arent chemicals in the buds. if you do a tight manicure job there should be barely any sugarleaf on your buds. starving a plant at its most vital stage is ridiculous  there are some nutrients that are not mobile and cant be supplied by the leaves themselves.
> 
> you guys can make the argument .... you'll just never make sense
> 
> happy growing


----------



## markybuds (Jan 24, 2012)

Eraserhead said:


> Hows the bubbleponics work out for you in early veg? I have heard that is it much faster than DWC. In my experience, DWC worked the fastest for me in the early stages, _then_ soil-less mixes, _then_ regular soil, which I have quit altogether 3 years ago.
> 
> I am experimenting with coco right now, and just finished my highest yield ever, a DWC grow, and prior, I used Promix for a couple years with great results.
> 
> I plan to go full time DWC in the next months, much less messy.


growth always seems to be full steam ahead, with the exception of a few days in between transplant of my rockwool into my 3'' netcups. i've got a nice system going for my available space i'm using. i grow perpetual in individual coolers. 2 2-gallon coolers for veg and 2 5-gallon coolers for flower. i'm always coming up with ways to improve my system based on my growing techniques and simple convenience. i've done aeroponics before this method but given my space it wasnt optimal. i've become interested in soil lately because i ran an AUTO freebie recently and liked the results. so i'm thinking of making that a part of my 'all the time' thing  even looking to learn more about LED's so i can maybe run that with my auto project as opposed to CFL's like i did the 1st time.

edit: i flower with a 600w hps but use a metal hallide the 1st three weeks to minimize stretch  i use CFL's for veg and also on my auto i grew out. didnt wanna confuse you and make you think i grow completely with CFL's


----------



## del66666 (Jan 24, 2012)

i dont flush .............a few of my girls 12-12 from seed........


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Yes, this is my first time online Jorge jr.

Can I have your autograph?



Rumple said:


> Now that is the funniest thing posted here. This your first time online? (Oh, I mean "Is this your first time online?")
> 
> We are grateful to have have Eraserhead to grade our papers.


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Not only that, you mentioned YOU don't even smoke weed?

You don't? You don't smoke? 

But you have such a strong opinion to where you want to email relics about flushing?

Get lost you tool.



Rumple said:


> Now that is the funniest thing posted here. This your first time online? (Oh, I mean "Is this your first time online?")
> 
> We are grateful to have have Eraserhead to grade our papers.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Jan 24, 2012)

And I'm glad there's people like you that do not care about their grammar. Makes things funny for smart people. Are you an animal? Did you not go to school? Jebus Crust peoples.....

And btw, fuck Jorge. He's a journalist. 

You "email" Jorge? Tell him "2012 called and said to go fuck yourself" next time y'all chat.



Rumple said:


> Now that is the funniest thing posted here. This your first time online? (Oh, I mean "Is this your first time online?")
> 
> We are grateful to have have Eraserhead to grade our papers.


----------



## IHaveTheTruth (Jan 24, 2012)

I guess flushing might also be related to the method you grow with(soil, hydro), probably any other media used, types of nutrients. What strain you're working with. Are you growing organic, or using "super-bloomer", like a Shooting Powder? There's all kinds of factors that really go into this, right? 
Truthfully, the only way you could know what chemical compounds your herb is made of would be gas spectrometry, or some other sort of lab testing.
Flushing can also be used to achieve some desired characteristics, by the grower. And what you smell, taste or see, might not be all of what's in there...
So, since a lot of us won't be getting lab testing done, I guess it's personal preference...


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

[video=youtube;f8fbrUjjivw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fbrUjjivw[/video]

And who put these pencils in my hand?!


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Would you like a button? Or a star?

What's your point? Relics from the olden days telling us carburetors are better than fuel injection? Or asbestos is better than polyurethane foam? Christians telling us the world is flat?

Maybe you need a time out there champ?



Rumple said:


> You don't have to like Jorge, Greg, or Ed to know the above statement is untrue.
> 
> Jorge Cervantes:
> 
> ...


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

There is a guy with a giant butterfly net looking for you. And a short bus. 

It's cool man. I'll come visit you in the booby hatch. I'm a nice person. Would you like me to bring you anything? No files though. And no shoe laces. 



Rumple said:


> Who are you talking about? Most of the stuff is current.
> Why so hostile? You need to change strain or flush before harvest to get out the stuff that making your so grumpy.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Jan 24, 2012)

I have an extra Hooked on Phonics I can hook your boy up with. I got it at a yard sale, came with a lamp I bought. Maybe Rumples can get something out if it.



Eraserhead said:


> There is a guy with a giant butterfly net looking for you. And a short bus.
> 
> It's cool man. I'll come visit you in the booby hatch. I'm a nice person. Would you like me to bring you anything? No files though. And no shoe laces.


Rumply, my Hooked on Phonics is yours brother. Can you say "B R O T H E R" ?



Rumple said:


> Who are you talking about? Most of the stuff is current.
> Why so hostile? You need to change strain or flush before harvest to get out the stuff thats making your so grumpy.


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Growing with 80s and 90s tech, flushing like the cavemen did. Maybe_ you_ should write a book.

It'd be in the comedy section.

I'm hitting 0.9 grams per watt of solid dense potent buds with my LEDs,_ somebody better call my momma..... _And, I'm not selling LEDs, nor have anything to gain regardless of what light people use. The 0.9 is for myself.

What are you getting with your heat lamps?

Check this out, I have been growing for roughly 20 years, and used HPS, fluorescent lights (can you say "fluorescent", repeat after me f l u o r e s c e n t , rolls right off your tongue once you can grasp basic English), and I also grew for years outdoors. I know what I'm doing. 

I'm not a newb Jorge jr.. Better recognize, this is 2012 fool! 



Rumple said:


> Ok, I'm a slow typer and have bad grammar (tiz a fact).
> But I never got suckered into buying a LED lamp... Soooooo how that going for you sport? Need to barrow a few bucks and some of my trimming?
> 
> LOL!
> ...


----------



## markybuds (Jan 24, 2012)

Rumple said:


> You don't have to like Jorge, Greg, or Ed to know the above statement is untrue.
> 
> Jorge Cervantes:
> 
> ...


funny.. i've got Ed Rosenthals new book 'Marijuana Growers Handbook' the official course book for oaksterdam university and there isnt one mention of flush in the entire book. 
not one.
not even in the reference pages in the back of the book.
and in this book he covers every single aspect of growing.. top to bottom.
inside and out. pardon the pun 
he fails to mention anything about flushing.

use common sense and form your own opinions based whats in front of you..
just because some dude writes a book and keeps regurgitating the same info over and over, just giving it a new cover and title, doesnt make it a new book.
if Jorge told you to smear your own shit on the base of your stems to improve taste i bet you'd try it 

completely flushing in hydro is moronic


----------



## Rumple (Jan 24, 2012)

Lol, I can't spell knucklehead consumer, or super gullible, but I do know BS when I see it.

I have an attic full of LED lights I have tested (at no cost to me), the only thing they are good for is Christmas decorations and separating fools from their money.

Another test I did: *Rumple's 1st LED Challenge*


----------



## Rumple (Jan 24, 2012)

"_Grams per watt __or __Grams per total watts used.. One is for retards, what one do you use?" _


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

I saw your thread. And I can assure you that:

1) LEDs have changed since then

2) you can't grow yourself out of a paper bag.

So, you can be quiet now, you non-weed smoking, 60s growers quoting, clown college flunkee.

You can be on your way now. Bye.... bye..... See ya.....



Rumple said:


> Lol, I can't spell knucklehead consumer, or super gullible, but I do know BS when I see it.
> 
> I have an attic full of LED lights I have tested (at no cost to me), the only thing they are good for is Christmas decorations and separating fools from their money.
> 
> Another test I did: *Rumple's 1st LED Challenge*


----------



## Rumple (Jan 24, 2012)

> I'm hitting 0.9 grams per watt of solid dense potent buds with my LEDs


Please your nose is growing and it might poke an eye out. You are a new grower that I can tell. This is your first grow, and you bought LEDs... LOL

Let us know how it comes out....

You can check the paper bag I grow out of in my sig...

Case rested.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Jan 24, 2012)

What's so difficult? 3 weeks veg, whatever weeks flower depending on strain, doing that I get 0.7-0.8 grams per watt with LED. Even with the 7-8 week strains.

Am I retarded? 

Be careful what you say. You came barreling in here drunk driving a short bud. 



Rumple said:


> "_Grams per watt __or __Grams per total watts used.. One is for retards, what one do you use?" _


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

You got me, I started growing tomorrow.

You don't know me fool. You don't know who I am.

I am 35 years old dude, I started growing when I was 15 when I still lived outside the US.




Rumple said:


> Please your nose is growing and it might poke an eye out. You are a new grower that I can tell. This is your first grow, and you bought LEDs... LOL
> 
> Let us know how it comes out....
> 
> ...


----------



## El Superbeasto (Jan 24, 2012)

I think you need to be quiet. You do not know these people to be making judgement like that.

You don't even smoke weed dude, so shut the fuck up. 

You posted some asinine crap, someone commented on it, and you went retarded.

Calm down dude. Take off your E-muscles.... Relax.... Ommmmmmmmm.......

Ommmmmmmmmmmm......



Rumple said:


> Please your nose is growing and it might poke an eye out. You are a new grower that I can tell. This is your first grow, and you bought LEDs... LOL
> 
> Let us know how it comes out....
> 
> ...


----------



## Rumple (Jan 24, 2012)

> You don't know me fool. You don't know who I am


I know who you are.. The light you picked says it all. Pegged.

It's ok to be new, but you will have to accept your mistakes and move on.. Lets start by putting that lamp on ebay.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Jan 24, 2012)

Oh please tell us which light to buy oh mighty one whom doesn't know the flavor of marijuana....

Please tell us.

Do you have more wisdom from the vaults from the days of Yore? Do tell. Do tell.......


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Tell me who I am. You don't know jack shit your fucktard. Now it is probably past your bedtime, and your mom is probably worried.

Go to bed you fuck!



Rumple said:


> I know who you are.


----------



## Vunter Slaush (Jan 24, 2012)

I didn't want to waste my 1st post on this, but... 
I read your posts. Get a grip. Judging someone based on the lights they use? So what whatever lights whoever uses.. I use goddamn reflection from my aluminum shed from a west shining sun in the West Virginia mountains. Does that mean my buds are no good? Can you tell me why? Professor? 

It's hard to take you serious, you haven't smoked weed before? Your wife is your word on your buds? 

Let me ask you, do you wear the pants in this relationship rinkles?



Rumple said:


> I know who you are.. The light you picked says it all. Pegged.
> 
> It's ok to be new, but you will have to accept your mistakes and move on.. Lets start by putting that lamp on ebay.


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Listen everyone, this guy attacked me because of my growing methods, because I won't agree with him on flushing. When did LEDs come into play regarding this?



Rumple said:


> I know who you are.. The light you picked says it all. Pegged.
> 
> It's ok to be new, but you will have to accept your mistakes and move on.. Lets start by putting that lamp on ebay.


I'll start dating your mom and make your bedtime 2 hours earlier if you don't knock it off...


----------



## YoungAndAmbitious (Jan 24, 2012)

wow everyone needs to chill out in here, especially rumple. Hate to burst your bubble rumple but you come off as pompous, ignorant and stubborn. Nobody cares about your LED grow from 2 1/2 years ago so stop trying to force your opinion on everyone, you're just wasting space in this thread. This thread is about flushing, not you trying to prove everyone wrong when you dont seem very educated to begin with.


----------



## Rumple (Jan 24, 2012)

YoungAndAmbitious said:


> wow everyone needs to chill out in here, especially rumple. Hate to burst your bubble rumple but you come off as pompous, ignorant and stubborn. Nobody cares about your LED grow from 2 1/2 years ago so stop trying to force your opinion on everyone, you're just wasting space in this thread. This thread is about flushing, not you trying to prove everyone wrong when you dont seem very educated to begin with.


I agree. I apologize.


----------



## Rumple (Jan 24, 2012)

YoungAndAmbitious said:


> wow everyone needs to chill out in here, especially rumple. Hate to burst your bubble rumple but you come off as pompous, ignorant and stubborn. Nobody cares about your LED grow from 2 1/2 years ago so stop trying to force your opinion on everyone, you're just wasting space in this thread. This thread is about flushing, not you trying to prove everyone wrong when you dont seem very educated to begin with.


I agree and apologize. Not sure what got into me.


----------



## Eraserhead (Jan 24, 2012)

Sporting that hall monitor badge quite proudly I see....



SlimJim503 said:


> You guys still tripping about this do the test runs for yourself and dont both posting here anymore you just look like school girls fighting over the internet. I dont care what any of you do with your final stages of flower I am now convinced most of you are fools anyways sure the rest of the forum are annoyed as well. Just drop it and let this thread die fuck.


----------



## senorfrisk (Jan 24, 2012)

BigBuddahCheese said:


> Actually the buds I continue to feed get bigger for sure. Now I do monitor my ppms and the plants definately drop in ppm usage last few weeks, but I give them what they ask for and don't starve them.


This seems to be the most sensible thing to me. If the plants need nutes, why not give it to them? In the amount they desire, of course...


----------



## rocpilefsj (Jan 24, 2012)

Thread Closed!

What was a decent thread with good info and productive arguments has been derailed by immature posts, trolling and flaming.


----------



## k0ijn (Apr 11, 2017)

I've come back to this thread after 5 years, to check whether I missed anything, since I left the thread after I had made my points 5 times over, provided all the scientific evidence and had the same discussion 20 times @ about page 20.



I'm very happy to see that in the end, the thread actually ended well.

I'd like to extend a thank you to markybuds for this post;





markybuds said:


> funny.. i've got Ed Rosenthals new book 'Marijuana Growers Handbook' the official course book for oaksterdam university and there isnt one mention of flush in the entire book.
> not one.
> not even in the reference pages in the back of the book.
> and in this book he covers every single aspect of growing.. top to bottom.
> ...


I couldn't agree with you more, it is the same point I made time and time again.
To anyone rereading or reading this thread for the first time; _always trust the science, anyone can write a book_.

Also, I'd like to just comment on YoungAndAmbitious' post and Rumples response;


YoungAndAmbitious said:


> wow everyone needs to chill out in here, especially rumple. Hate to burst your bubble rumple but you come off as pompous, ignorant and stubborn. Nobody cares about your LED grow from 2 1/2 years ago so stop trying to force your opinion on everyone, you're just wasting space in this thread. This thread is about flushing, not you trying to prove everyone wrong when you dont seem very educated to begin with.





Rumple said:


> I agree and apologize. Not sure what got into me.


This apology is basically what I asked for over 5 years ago, and now today (when I happen to check old threads where I wrote about plant biology and science in general) I see that the end of the discussion/argument was actually punctuated over 5 years ago.

The time of the trolls, their pathetic personal attacks and underachievement in life is over.

I hope that this is a lesson to people still spouting the myth of 'pre-harvest flushing'.

Thank you to everyone who contributed.


----------



## k0ijn (Dec 29, 2017)

Eraserhead said:


> I saw your thread. And I can assure you that:
> 
> 1) LEDs have changed since then
> 
> ...


I don't know how I missed this gem of a post when I posted about this thread back in April.
For some reason a post of mine got liked from this 6 year old thread and I almost spat out my tea reading your post.
Top kek @Eraserhead !


----------

