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

[akula]

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

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

 

[k0ijn]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[k0ijn]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[m420p]

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

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

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

You are your 'friends' my taste a difference because you are not drying correctly, or not curing correctly or indeed not growing correctly.
People with a lot more experience than you have noticed no change in anything other than pre-harvest flushed plants tend to not grow as big as plants which get fed throughout their life.
That you and your friends can't see to grow properly is not reliable, credible or factual information.
It doesn't prove anything, it has NO relation to facts.

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


Your argument is a fallacy in the end.
It's the same as asking me to prove god doesn't exist, if I can't then he must exist.
The illogical and false nature of questions like that is so apparent to any reasonable person.
The most important thing about it is that we don't have to have studies on pre-harvest flushing particularly to assert certain facts about plants and how they work.
And the premise that we do is illogical and backwards thinking which helps no one.
Instead you should just read the scientific information and learn something.
This hate of facts and evidence is beyond me.

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

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

And just so you know, I'm Atheist.

 

[k0ijn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[k0ijn]

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

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

And just so you know, I'm Atheist .

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

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

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

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

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



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

 

[m420p]

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

Please, quote me when I said this.

"without a doubt it must be the nutrients in the calyxes, there is no other way."

nvmd, don't quote me, because you'll make up a quote.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rumple]

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

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

 

[k0ijn]

Please, quote me when I said this.

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

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

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

"without a doubt it must be the nutrients in the calyxes, there is no other way."

nvmd, don't quote me, because you'll make up a quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[k0ijn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[m420p]

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



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


That statement was never a quote of you. It was a way of showing people the ignorance of your statement.
You said you know that there is a difference, well that is simply wrong.
You think you know, you think it's a fact, you believe it, you don't know it truthfully.




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




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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[k0ijn]

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Rumple]

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

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

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

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

 

[Rumple]

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

 

[k0ijn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[m420p]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[k0ijn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[Uncle Pirate]

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

 

[k0ijn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SimonD]

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

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

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

Simon