I think flushing is a myth heres why
- Thread starter cyrax42o
- Start date
madprofessor
New Member
I flush for 50 days for the smoothest smoke possible
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
so, this is how you grow weed,
veg them out and keep em nice and green, then pump them full of bloom nutes, then after there almost dead, you pump them full of water to try and wash out all the crap that killed em.
seems like a genius way to grow.
I prefer to keep em green until I'm ready to chop them down. so do they for that matter.
veg them out and keep em nice and green, then pump them full of bloom nutes, then after there almost dead, you pump them full of water to try and wash out all the crap that killed em.
seems like a genius way to grow.
I prefer to keep em green until I'm ready to chop them down. so do they for that matter.
Ninjabowler
Well-Known Member
Post your feeding shedule chuck......id love to look at it to see how to throw it down mr sheen
im tryin to figure out the final count down 
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
I've been reading a lot of botany documents recently about starch synthesis, carb partitioning, and sugar pathways, and from what I've read, plants use their circadian rhythm and other environmental factors to plan out exactly how fast it can burn starch at night to make it through the night without using up the supply while having none left at dawn. (timing it so it has 0 starch left when the lights come on to maximize growth at night, without running out and starving)
One of the factors I read from a lot of sources is that higher inorganic phosphate levels inhibits starch synthesis, suggesting that reducing phosphates to 0 in the nutrient solution could be counter intuitive and cause the plant to generates more starches rather than use the flux to grow faster. Experiments in soy beans and corn show that phosphate deficient plants show a greater partitioning of total carbs as starch, whereas phosphate sufficient plants show a greater partitioning of carbs as simple sugars for immediate use or transport to sink tissue.
From this, I'm thinking flushing doesn't make much of a difference and to just keep the plants green up until harvest, only lowering the ppm but not using pure water. The only thing that matters I think is that the plant has very little starch in it when harvesting, then the smoke will taste amazing. So just cut right before the lights come on. I don't think properly broken down chlorophyll is what makes weed taste bad anyway, it's the starch.
One of the factors I read from a lot of sources is that higher inorganic phosphate levels inhibits starch synthesis, suggesting that reducing phosphates to 0 in the nutrient solution could be counter intuitive and cause the plant to generates more starches rather than use the flux to grow faster. Experiments in soy beans and corn show that phosphate deficient plants show a greater partitioning of total carbs as starch, whereas phosphate sufficient plants show a greater partitioning of carbs as simple sugars for immediate use or transport to sink tissue.
From this, I'm thinking flushing doesn't make much of a difference and to just keep the plants green up until harvest, only lowering the ppm but not using pure water. The only thing that matters I think is that the plant has very little starch in it when harvesting, then the smoke will taste amazing. So just cut right before the lights come on. I don't think properly broken down chlorophyll is what makes weed taste bad anyway, it's the starch.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Here's another good one.
Ninjabowler
Well-Known Member
Well what breaks down during the cure then mr science? Caaaause thats what defines the taste right? You dont cure corn or soy do you. Actually quite the contrary. You would like them to not age, oxidize, or ferment, for as long as possible. You would like to preserve one perfect time when they are ripe in the sun...right?
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
What breaks down during the cure that makes the biggest difference in taste is the starch. I'm not saying you shouldn't cure, but isn't it intuitive that if you start with more starch when you cut, the cure will take longer and be less effective? Chlorophyll breaks down in the air, but starch just goes stale if it isn't completely consumed in the cure.
It's not exactly like it's my idea. I've read a few harvest guides that suggest cutting right before the lights come on for the same reason, as well as a few threads with people swearing it increases potency in their product, which I think is a result of less total content starch too. That's why I started looking up the sciency stuff. The point is that studies show that leaf tissue is programmed to consume all the food it makes during the day in one night by estimating night length. That also explains one reason why weed hates having its light cycles changed. It guesses how long the night will be based on previous days and nights and burns starch at night at a rate according to that.
The thing about the studies I've been reading is that generally they aren't as interested in reducing the harvest of starch as much as increasing it. (who'd want to reduce the starch yield of potatoes for example?)
It's not exactly like it's my idea. I've read a few harvest guides that suggest cutting right before the lights come on for the same reason, as well as a few threads with people swearing it increases potency in their product, which I think is a result of less total content starch too. That's why I started looking up the sciency stuff. The point is that studies show that leaf tissue is programmed to consume all the food it makes during the day in one night by estimating night length. That also explains one reason why weed hates having its light cycles changed. It guesses how long the night will be based on previous days and nights and burns starch at night at a rate according to that.
The thing about the studies I've been reading is that generally they aren't as interested in reducing the harvest of starch as much as increasing it. (who'd want to reduce the starch yield of potatoes for example?)
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
It was only recently when it hit me why sometimes I'd get this amazing product that crumbles up perfectly and stores well, and others cured the same way that ended up smelling like hay after a week of drying and putting in the jar, while not breaking up well.
Also, what's the harm in cutting right before the lights come on other than being stubborn and not wanting to try? I gave a friend of mine this advice, and he told me he'd chop 6 hours into the lights coming on just to be a dick.
Also, what's the harm in cutting right before the lights come on other than being stubborn and not wanting to try? I gave a friend of mine this advice, and he told me he'd chop 6 hours into the lights coming on just to be a dick.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
I know this post is really old, but how can your plant take up heavy metals in a hydroponic system unless you put heavy metals in the solution? Heavy metals are only in soil, and if heavy metals were coming from your water, how would flushing with heavy metals make anything better? Sort of funny how soil growers claim their stuff has no "chemicals" in it, when they have no idea what's in it.
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
it is as simple as it gets, I use pro=mix and feed at 7-900 ppms every time I water. I use cal-mag because I use r/o. and i use a product called thunder-groPost your feeding shedule chuck......id love to look at it to see how to throw it down mr sheen
http://www.thundergro.com/gro/?tag=thunder-gro
the run I just finished using 20-20-20 was one of my best, I'm still trimming all the bud and people thought I sprayed my weed with something to get the smell I got from them. I'm trying out foliage-pro to see the difference.
Sir.Ganga
New Member
Do you understand the process? Doesn't sound like you have a grasp on what actually transpires through the life cycle of the plant. You obviously have never sent any of your cannabis in for testing or you would not be talking out your ass. Coming on here with a big mouth and a little knowledge base shows your level and personality. Get something tested.....then come on here and try to be a big man.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Again, old post, but thank you for this!! This is more evidence for me that sufficient levels of phosphates inhibits starch production, just like in every single botany research paper I've read so far in just about every species of plant. Cutting off phosphate levels right before harvest promotes starch synthesis and using less flux on growth. This would be good if you were planning on eating the weed for it's calorie value.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Okay guys and girls, here's another one. Everything blue is said to induce AGPase (enzyme governing rate of starch synthesis) while everything in red inhibits it:
Starving your plants of nitrate and Pi (inorganic phosphates, aka "chemicals"), just throws the plants out of whack before the cure. If your product has too many "chemicals" or "synthesized inorganic salts" left in it, it's because it was being over fed. Plants are supposed to have chemicals in them. Plants don't eat different chemicals just because you use soil. It's the same plant and it takes up the same chemicals.
Here's the source.. It's a great read. Most of what I've read from similar documents for other plants shows that this mechanism works the same in many plants:
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/155/4/1566.full
Starving your plants of nitrate and Pi (inorganic phosphates, aka "chemicals"), just throws the plants out of whack before the cure. If your product has too many "chemicals" or "synthesized inorganic salts" left in it, it's because it was being over fed. Plants are supposed to have chemicals in them. Plants don't eat different chemicals just because you use soil. It's the same plant and it takes up the same chemicals.
Here's the source.. It's a great read. Most of what I've read from similar documents for other plants shows that this mechanism works the same in many plants:
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/155/4/1566.full
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Yet another great one, iodine starch testing (turns blue with starch). EN = end of night, ED = end of day.
Fig. 7. Iodine staining of rosette leaves from each plant. Rosette leaves were obtained at the end of the night (EN) and day (ED) from wild-type (WT), TL46, and transgenic plants (Twt-1, Tup1-9, Tup2-1, and Tup3-2) and then treated in iodine solution.
(notice how the TL46 mutant strain has a problem synthesizing starch during the day and suffers low growth at night as a result)
Here's the source:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168945205002670
This stuff looks very promising for the whole cure community. I'll always be cutting at end of night from now on. Also, for those with a ton of weed, an iodine test could be done to compare starch levels of their product for a definitive test on the whole flush vs no flush debate, just dissolve all the chlorophyll with alcohol first (i read this is how they get it out in research experiments). All I've been reading has also shown me a whole new light to genetic modification. These guys are all testing genetically modified mutants and comparing to wild type strains to test theories on various plant systems work. Why are cannabis growers so uninterested in botany and other plants in general? They just want to get a magic bottle that turns into $$$$$. This stuff is fascinating, dank weed or no.
Fig. 7. Iodine staining of rosette leaves from each plant. Rosette leaves were obtained at the end of the night (EN) and day (ED) from wild-type (WT), TL46, and transgenic plants (Twt-1, Tup1-9, Tup2-1, and Tup3-2) and then treated in iodine solution.
(notice how the TL46 mutant strain has a problem synthesizing starch during the day and suffers low growth at night as a result)
Here's the source:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168945205002670
This stuff looks very promising for the whole cure community. I'll always be cutting at end of night from now on. Also, for those with a ton of weed, an iodine test could be done to compare starch levels of their product for a definitive test on the whole flush vs no flush debate, just dissolve all the chlorophyll with alcohol first (i read this is how they get it out in research experiments). All I've been reading has also shown me a whole new light to genetic modification. These guys are all testing genetically modified mutants and comparing to wild type strains to test theories on various plant systems work. Why are cannabis growers so uninterested in botany and other plants in general? They just want to get a magic bottle that turns into $$$$$. This stuff is fascinating, dank weed or no.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
In layman's terms, no don't cut your fan leaves, make sure they're green and healthy by giving them enough N so they don't turn yellow and fall off before harvest. The article was for the "flush vs don't flush" debate.
Ninjabowler
Well-Known Member
So you use this thunder grow from seed to cut at 7-900 ppm? No flush, no reduced strength at the end? Just feed it, hack it and pack it?