Walt, i was wondering if you could answer me something. Recently i picked up some bud from a buddy and its got a funky tatste to it. Unlike most indoor the stem is ever so slightly browned as well as the underside of the buds. Most indoor i pick up has light green stem and underside.
Is this because the grower didnt flush iyo? Or not enough dry before curing? This taste lingers and i dont like it at all. I had to smoke some different bud just to get the taste out of my mouth...its still lingering in my mouth... Pleck... Insight please?
Most definitely mold is not a good thing. I wont name names and when I went over from BM to the legal side of growing I didnt last long due to unethical practices being used in the commersh side of life. I lasted 3 weeks before I quit and went back to BM. Dude who was my direct report had our harvest/ process team send out some moldy bud. When I mentioned about we should not put it on the shelves, he said fuck man, people have been smoking moldy weed since the 60,s Not a Bid Deal!!! Along with that I've seen spraying pesticides late in flower, crops routinely harvested 2 weeks early to keep stock on shelves, use of PGR's, Black mold growing in the trailers and a host of other shit. Like I said I lasted 3 weeks and bailed. The man actually tried to convince me that smoking mold due to the heat of combustion killed the spores and what was I worried about. Sidebar if this is the way Big Mersh is going to roll, thewn most for certain good boutique growers will always have a market. And that is a good thing!!you're smoking moldy ass weed. make the dude you bought it from eat it (literally) or get your money back
botrytis can make the inside of bud any shade from gray to brown to black, and be any texture from a slight discoloration of bud to full on fuzzy mold to slime, it's all dependent on how bad the infection is, how long it was around, and whether it's from poor drying or from growing conditions.
Hmm I too get a sore throat from unflushed, sprayed buds when others don't. It is because we smoked ciggs for decades?I use a vaporizer and if I vape bud that isn't properly flushed it gives me a sore throat. I smoked cigarettes for 20 years or more and I can really tell the difference between flushed and non flushed buds. Vaping some well manicured well flushed bud is a smooth pleasurable experience with very little choking.
Hmm I too get a sore throat from unflushed, sprayed buds when others don't. It is because we smoked ciggs for decades?
No allergies that I know of.do you have allergies? my sinuses get stuffed up real bad from over fertilized bud
in nature the fall season (here in michigan) sees a lot of rain and plants get flushed naturally whether you want it to happen or not. absolutely gorgeous colors too.Some good points have been raised here. Intuitively, it makes sense that flushing would actually be detrimental. When you think about it in relation to what would happen naturally, this would almost never occur. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be starved just as I'm trying to put in resources what reproduction!
in nature the fall season (here in michigan) sees a lot of rain and plants get flushed naturally whether you want it to happen or not. absolutely gorgeous colors too.
thank you for clarifying that for me. but could you tell me why it is then that whenever I have plants or see them outdoors in the fall season when it rains a lot they start to show a lot of deficiency or as some call it (myself included) fade? i had thought that that degree of fade would only be achieved with a flush and so it just made since that when I was seeing fall colors in my plants they were being flushed. tho some plants do just go very light green. again though can you tell me why that is? I am genuinely curious.Normal rainwater does not flush the nutrition out of soil. Plants in a healthy 'natural' ecosystem are never deprived of nutrients.
thank you for clarifying that for me. but could you tell me why it is then that whenever I have plants or see them outdoors in the fall season when it rains a lot they start to show a lot of deficiency or as some call it (myself included) fade? i had thought that that degree of fade would only be achieved with a flush and so it just made since that when I was seeing fall colors in my plants they were being flushed. tho some plants do just go very light green. again though can you tell me why that is? I am genuinely curious.
Fall colors/fade are mostly a result of falling temps and the chemical compound called anthocyanin,thank you for clarifying that for me. but could you tell me why it is then that whenever I have plants or see them outdoors in the fall season when it rains a lot they start to show a lot of deficiency or as some call it (myself included) fade? i had thought that that degree of fade would only be achieved with a flush and so it just made since that when I was seeing fall colors in my plants they were being flushed. tho some plants do just go very light green. again though can you tell me why that is? I am genuinely curious.
thank you for clarifying that for me. but could you tell me why it is then that whenever I have plants or see them outdoors in the fall season when it rains a lot they start to show a lot of deficiency or as some call it (myself included) fade? i had thought that that degree of fade would only be achieved with a flush and so it just made since that when I was seeing fall colors in my plants they were being flushed. tho some plants do just go very light green. again though can you tell me why that is? I am genuinely curious.
freeze dryer a commercial one is the only wayI would like to question the practicality of flushing for the last week. Actually, I am openly challenging the entire notion of it (hehe, just for a bit of fun) but seriously now... it’s in dire need of revisiting.
I will list some points that not only challenge the absurd impracticality and illogicality of this myth, but point out how the pseudoscience behind it is fundamentally flawed (as is all pseudoscience) and can be countered by what is known about basic plant biology.
1. Robbing plants of essential nutrients at any stage of their life cycle is NOT beneficial for growth. I challenge anyone to provide a single peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal that provides evidence suggesting otherwise.
2. If this was practical, wouldn’t you expect all big agricultural hydroponic growers adopt the same practice?
3. Plants take minerals into their tissues, from their roots via the treachery elements; i.e. xylem. Once these minerals are in the plant, they are there to stay, the plant does not expel them, unless it’s through senescence-driven abscission of leaf petioles. From the treachery elements nutrients are translocated into the phloem - the plant’s ‘blood supply’ - after being integrated into various biomolecules, or are used for various metabolic functions. Where is the logic in thinking the plant ‘uses’ these up in that last week of flushing, in order to avoid smoking them? All the N P K Fe Mg Ca etc. is still there.
4. For arguments sake say we counter the last point by suggesting these minerals in their ‘raw form’ will taste ‘hasher’ or ‘nastier’ in the form of pyrolytic breakdown products (formed when weed is burned) than artifacts of larger biomolecules of which these minerals/macro nutrients are now a part of, for example phosphorylated PO43-. Even if this was the case it still doesn’t correlate with the myth, as the transports steam in the treachery elements is measured in minutes not a week. i.e. a PO43- molecule does not wait around in these vessels for a week before subsequent translocation and modification.
5. If there was any truth to this myth, then plants grown in soil would always taste worse than plants grown in hydro. Why? Because obviously soil is not an inert medium you can flush for a week. And a plant CANNOT distinguish between a PO43- molecule that comes from soil from that of a PO43- molecule that comes from hydro solution (which also debunks another myth, but we’ll leave that one).
6. Are there studies that have conducted double blind trials to investigate if flushed weed tastes any ‘sweeter’ than unflushed weed. Again, need peer reviewed papers. And doesn’t have to be weed, can be strawberries or any other type of fruit.
7. What is the proposed mechanism to support this myth, and how is it consistent with fundamental plant biology.
8. How does starving the plant of food in the last week increase thc production in the trichome? Papers?
9. Given, under certain conditions stressed plants upregulate certain defence compounds, but they will almost certainly produce less inflorescence weight per watt of light. Growth is always retarded under stress - not promoted. Nutrient starvation is a form of stress. Looking for peer reviewed papers that suggest otherwise.
Those of you set in your ways, each to their own and best of luck to you. Those who are willing to change their views in light of new evidence, or lack thereof, be ready for increased yields by feeding those hungry ladies right up until the second you chop.
YS
flushing removes chlorophyll nothing to do with removing nutesI would like to question the practicality of flushing for the last week. Actually, I am openly challenging the entire notion of it (hehe, just for a bit of fun) but seriously now... it’s in dire need of revisiting.
I will list some points that not only challenge the absurd impracticality and illogicality of this myth, but point out how the pseudoscience behind it is fundamentally flawed (as is all pseudoscience) and can be countered by what is known about basic plant biology.
1. Robbing plants of essential nutrients at any stage of their life cycle is NOT beneficial for growth. I challenge anyone to provide a single peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal that provides evidence suggesting otherwise.
2. If this was practical, wouldn’t you expect all big agricultural hydroponic growers adopt the same practice?
3. Plants take minerals into their tissues, from their roots via the treachery elements; i.e. xylem. Once these minerals are in the plant, they are there to stay, the plant does not expel them, unless it’s through senescence-driven abscission of leaf petioles. From the treachery elements nutrients are translocated into the phloem - the plant’s ‘blood supply’ - after being integrated into various biomolecules, or are used for various metabolic functions. Where is the logic in thinking the plant ‘uses’ these up in that last week of flushing, in order to avoid smoking them? All the N P K Fe Mg Ca etc. is still there.
4. For arguments sake say we counter the last point by suggesting these minerals in their ‘raw form’ will taste ‘hasher’ or ‘nastier’ in the form of pyrolytic breakdown products (formed when weed is burned) than artifacts of larger biomolecules of which these minerals/macro nutrients are now a part of, for example phosphorylated PO43-. Even if this was the case it still doesn’t correlate with the myth, as the transports steam in the treachery elements is measured in minutes not a week. i.e. a PO43- molecule does not wait around in these vessels for a week before subsequent translocation and modification.
5. If there was any truth to this myth, then plants grown in soil would always taste worse than plants grown in hydro. Why? Because obviously soil is not an inert medium you can flush for a week. And a plant CANNOT distinguish between a PO43- molecule that comes from soil from that of a PO43- molecule that comes from hydro solution (which also debunks another myth, but we’ll leave that one).
6. Are there studies that have conducted double blind trials to investigate if flushed weed tastes any ‘sweeter’ than unflushed weed. Again, need peer reviewed papers. And doesn’t have to be weed, can be strawberries or any other type of fruit.
7. What is the proposed mechanism to support this myth, and how is it consistent with fundamental plant biology.
8. How does starving the plant of food in the last week increase thc production in the trichome? Papers?
9. Given, under certain conditions stressed plants upregulate certain defence compounds, but they will almost certainly produce less inflorescence weight per watt of light. Growth is always retarded under stress - not promoted. Nutrient starvation is a form of stress. Looking for peer reviewed papers that suggest otherwise.
Those of you set in your ways, each to their own and best of luck to you. Those who are willing to change their views in light of new evidence, or lack thereof, be ready for increased yields by feeding those hungry ladies right up until the second you chop.
YS
freeze dryer a commercial one is the only wayI would like to question the practicality of flushing for the last week. Actually, I am openly challenging the entire notion of it (hehe, just for a bit of fun) but seriously now... it’s in dire need of revisiting.
I will list some points that not only challenge the absurd impracticality and illogicality of this myth, but point out how the pseudoscience behind it is fundamentally flawed (as is all pseudoscience) and can be countered by what is known about basic plant biology.
1. Robbing plants of essential nutrients at any stage of their life cycle is NOT beneficial for growth. I challenge anyone to provide a single peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal that provides evidence suggesting otherwise.
2. If this was practical, wouldn’t you expect all big agricultural hydroponic growers adopt the same practice?
3. Plants take minerals into their tissues, from their roots via the treachery elements; i.e. xylem. Once these minerals are in the plant, they are there to stay, the plant does not expel them, unless it’s through senescence-driven abscission of leaf petioles. From the treachery elements nutrients are translocated into the phloem - the plant’s ‘blood supply’ - after being integrated into various biomolecules, or are used for various metabolic functions. Where is the logic in thinking the plant ‘uses’ these up in that last week of flushing, in order to avoid smoking them? All the N P K Fe Mg Ca etc. is still there.
4. For arguments sake say we counter the last point by suggesting these minerals in their ‘raw form’ will taste ‘hasher’ or ‘nastier’ in the form of pyrolytic breakdown products (formed when weed is burned) than artifacts of larger biomolecules of which these minerals/macro nutrients are now a part of, for example phosphorylated PO43-. Even if this was the case it still doesn’t correlate with the myth, as the transports steam in the treachery elements is measured in minutes not a week. i.e. a PO43- molecule does not wait around in these vessels for a week before subsequent translocation and modification.
5. If there was any truth to this myth, then plants grown in soil would always taste worse than plants grown in hydro. Why? Because obviously soil is not an inert medium you can flush for a week. And a plant CANNOT distinguish between a PO43- molecule that comes from soil from that of a PO43- molecule that comes from hydro solution (which also debunks another myth, but we’ll leave that one).
6. Are there studies that have conducted double blind trials to investigate if flushed weed tastes any ‘sweeter’ than unflushed weed. Again, need peer reviewed papers. And doesn’t have to be weed, can be strawberries or any other type of fruit.
7. What is the proposed mechanism to support this myth, and how is it consistent with fundamental plant biology.
8. How does starving the plant of food in the last week increase thc production in the trichome? Papers?
9. Given, under certain conditions stressed plants upregulate certain defence compounds, but they will almost certainly produce less inflorescence weight per watt of light. Growth is always retarded under stress - not promoted. Nutrient starvation is a form of stress. Looking for peer reviewed papers that suggest otherwise.
Those of you set in your ways, each to their own and best of luck to you. Those who are willing to change their views in light of new evidence, or lack thereof, be ready for increased yields by feeding those hungry ladies right up until the second you chop.
YS
agreed but the point i was making is that flushing = smoother smoke more due to chlorophyll being broken down more so than the salts being vanquishedOf course flushing removes nutrients from the plants... It's basic osmosis... Things move from a higher concentration to a lower concentration... one of the three laws of Newton's thermodynamics.
agreed but the point i was making is that flushing = smoother smoke more due to chlorophyll being broken down more so than the salts being vanquished
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?