To think all I was trying to do was point out some logical fallacies of growing techniques. Never thought it would stir up such a fuss….for the record, my thesis had absolutely nothing to do with growing or smoking weed (but certainly helped me get through it LOL). I now regret I even mentioned it. I’m not pretending to be some high flying professor or a walking text book. If you would care to re-read what I wrote carefully, I made the point because it took me half my life to figure out I should be critically analyzing things - esp. my own confirmation biases and esp. in relation to my growing practices, i.e. “hey shit…maybe I should start questioning the doctrine because this and that don’t stack up”. Just because everyone else does it doesn’t mean it’s the best way to do it. I slow cured for years and it was a long time before I questioned whether it actually made any sense at all. I decided to try fast curing after reading up and talking to others who do it. After getting the technique down I’ve never looked back. To be clear on this - not one person has ever commented the weed I grow tastes harsh, bad or tastes like ‘chemicals’ (ironically I’ve had one person assuming it was organic, and others have asked. So what do you think that says to me?), it doesn’t smell like ‘hay’ (WTF?!), and the returning moisture content equals that of slow cured by the time it gets to the customer. If fast curing hadn’t been an improvement I’d have simply gone back to the old slow cure method, which is an easier and cheaper alternative because it doesn't require an intensive drying set up with all the associated hardware.
So that’s been my own personal experience. But rather than just rabbit on about that, what I posted was an attempt to provide a reasonably comprehendible explanation of why I believe it’s better to fast cure. I really tried to keep it objective and factual as possible. I have also provided what I believe is a very plausible explanation that accounts for the popular misnomer that fast cured weed supposedly always tastes harsher than slow cured - heat. And this is easily ameliorated via simple atmospheric rehydration, irrespective if the weed has been slow or dry cured. If someone would like to pick holes in that explanation, or question any other particular point, or think my understanding of the relevant biochemistry is shoddy or rudimentary, then please point out where and provide some logical reasoning to support your point of view. I like to engage in the type of dialogue that’s conducive to a productive and informative discussion where I am able to learn something valuable too. Unfortunately all some of you have been able to do so far is ‘critique’ my spelling or grammar in a schoolyard attempt to discredit my post. Well that makes an obvious statement…..and I doubt I’m the only one who sees that. But hey.
Really there’s just no need for disparaging (and honestly disappointing) personal attacks just because you don’t agree with something that challenges your own personal beliefs. And FYI I thought my use of the word ‘stipulate’ was entirely contextually appropriate, but I have no issues with admitting I’m wrong about something, I often am - don’t worry, my kids tell me so all the time.
@Organicyumyum, I read this thread yesterday, before your others posted were deleted (obviously they were of little worth). I never once claimed I was a scientist, just because I did a thesis does not make me one. I haven’t spread misinformation - that’s just not true. You’re right, we have absolutely no idea who you are. But I’m happy to give you the benefit of the doubt; you’re a ‘man of science’ with ’14 years of growing experience’, and clearly very opinionated on some philosophical topics too. Nice mix. That’s fine. I have more than a few years growing experience on you my friend. I also think you are wrong. In that thread I posed several questions relating to plant physiology and the redundancy of flushing. Perhaps you could help elucidate why flushing is necessary then, rather than just your personal opinion backed by 14 years of growing….Can I request you just stick to the facts, specifically I’m interested in the supposed mechanisms at play - what is happening at the molecular level. Seriously it’d be great if you could share some of your knowledge on this - to prevent the spread of misinformation of course ;)
I also don’t appreciate being accused of cutting corners for profit. That’s not true either. I’m extremely passionate about growing and have been since I was a kid, and take great pride in what I produce - so kindly mince your words. You clearly have NOT done both drying methods, at least not like I have. Well I DO have the experience of doing both, and both for many years, so I am in a position where I can make a very clear objective assessment of all the pros and cons. In a nutshell, when you put the effort into fast curing buds properly, the end product is markedly superior. I am not the only person knows this, and it’s starting to catch on esp. in the med scene. Maybe you should revisit this thread in a few years and see what’s changed. I'll be happy to accept your gracious 'apology' then. You want photos. I don’t have any comparison nug shots, and even if I did I doubt there’d be any discernible difference other than a slightly lighter green hue for the fast cured. That means nothing. I can’t photograph potency and aroma. If you’re so skeptical maybe you should risk a bud, follow my instructions carefully and do some double blind trials for yourself. I expect you know the drill. Then come back and tell me what you think.
…or you can just continue hollering ‘BS’ on my thread, and continue backing that up with nothing but your obtuse dribble, and in doing so, continue to vindicate everything I’ve written.
YS