Interesting Paper On Vpd And Flushing

[Aqua Man]

I'm just going to throw in a comment for shits and giggles. The test of time has shown us that when you fuck with mother nature, mother nature fucks with you. Look at all the scientific evidence coming to light over GMO foods and hormones used in raising our food products. All shit we didn't know at some point. I feel the same way about this topic. While their may not be concrete scientific evidence supporting one side or the other on various issues it does not mean in 5 years we don't find out about it. Fuck with mother nature and it WILL fuck with you. Using UV damages the DNA of plants etc. all of this has some consequences even if we don't fully understand them at this point in time.

With all that said I grow indoor hydro and don't go near organic ferts while supplementing UV. Kind of ironic right.

Nature has developed over millions of years and its only our own human ignorance that allows us to believe we can somehow improve it while keeping it balanced.

I give props to all you organic guys out there but its just not my kind of thing, i am not ignorant of the fact while some scientific evidence may be missing there are not possibly huge consequences involved.

 

[RippedTorn]

I give props to all you organic guys out there but its just not my kind of thing, i am not ignorant of the fact while some scientific evidence may be missing there are not possibly huge consequences involved.

The problem with the Internet growing community is that numerics and corporate propaganda are the only two forms of science accepted. Can a lab printout denote the difference between nitrogen in plant crll tissue and nitrogen fertilizer sprayed on a plant tissue? Apparently the internet doesn't care to denote a difference between plant fibers and unprocessed fertilizers with have not yet been processed into plant fibers.

The science of observation and human data acquisition is not acknowledged by internet pot growers. Only computers can collect, decode evaluate and present data anymore, now that Cannabis is an Instagram pop culture accessory!

Observation is real science,not a bandaid over short comings,not a crippled tool to prove any point. Online Cannabis growers are disconnected from this observable reality. You shouldn't need a microscope or a lab test to perform science. I dont need a Brix meter to tell which Hashplant tastes like Im smoking stale old cheap Mexican bubblegum mixed with Research Chemicals, and which Hashplant tastes like sugary rich Cannabis Sativa Hashplant variety hash resin when smoked.

Oh and in case it matters, the one that tastes like specific brands of nutes always has a shittier, dirtier "just smoked a plastic 2 litre bottle" high, weighs more per volume, lower potency and fucks up your breathing instead of improving it. I hope people that don't flush realize no one with even minor breathing problems can smoke their plastic bud, while those same people with breathing problems actually use my natural bud to stay off Rx inhalers, Flonase, etc. Fucking night and day difference between clean herb and dirty shit, I'll never grasp the level of denial behind plastic weed growers.

 

[Aqua Man]

The problem with the Internet growing community is that numerics and corporate propaganda are the only two forms of science accepted. The science of observation and human data acquisition is not acknowledged by internet pot growers. Only computers can collect, decode evaluate and present data anymore, now that Cannabis is an Instagram pop culture accessory..

Observation is real science,not a bandaid over short comings. Cannabis growers are disconnected from reality. You shouldn't need a microscope or a lab test to perform science. I dont need a Brix meter to tell which Hashplant tastes like Im smoking stale old cheap Mexican bubblegum mixed with Research Chemicals, and which Hashplant tastes like sugary rich Cannabis hash when smoked.

While i agree its also the most subjective when it comes to taste, smell etc. everyone is different. thats why we prefer different foods. Our taste buds glands and sensory systems vary quite a bit. add in the fact a smokers senses for taste and smell are diminished and they may not feel its a bad as you say it is or may not notice as much of a burn. So the accuracy of observation is always quite questionable at best. I prefer to find an observation and then support it with scientific data. Unfortunately there is not always scientific data to back stuff up.

 

[cemchris]

I would say as growers who have used these forums for over a decade that scientific fact and papers are usually something we take skeptical till its proven in the real world. The exact opposite of what you said @RippedTorn. Look at all the bullshit the LED guys threw around when they first came on the scene and it was proven time and time again that the tech wasnt there at the time compared to the lights we were using even tho all the science and claims they threw around told a different story. Why so many of us have the skeptic view of LED lights in 2018/2019 even tho the tech is actually getting where it should be. People have to understand they did that to themselves. It isn't just blind hate. That is just 1 example of many.


Over the years we have had to sift through so much marketing BS disguised as science its hard to believe a paper until you try it. Why I take everything at face value. Then try it if I want to try it if it sounds interesting. The big mistake is spouting off some paper or some research without giving it some seat time yourself and just posting it like its truths. This has happened time and time again for years. I like the discussion and the ideas but the truth of the matter is most of this stuff is coming from a different plant and doesnt always apply to our exact crop and sometimes it does. Case specific.

I always give plants a plain water diet the last 7-13 days. Real world experience is: they yield the same, taste better, look better, and it costs me less on nutes and my bottom line. I have grown and smoked enough plants over the years where a paper isn't going to tell me something different. No matter the science to back it up. That is just me. Stubborn? Yes. Skeptic? You bet your ass.

I would say the people that latch onto the hot scientific paper of the moment or exact color temp of lights ect are more of the newer growers (not saying all of them, respect for the certain dudes) who have this idea that they can do it better then tried and true methods to get some validity on the internet. That is fine if that is the lane you want to drive in. The thing is I have seen so many times when people spend more money on a 4 x 4 tent, not including time, then i have on multi room setups to get 4oz of weed and argue about spectrum, light height, new sups, best nute brand, best light company, systems, media ect. It goes on and on while they have 2 grows under their belts and have never grow a plant outside of these crops and don't understand most of this shit get answered with experience and why the more experienced people talk about how you are wasting time and money depending on what you are after.

 

[Aqua Man]

I'm pretty new to cannabis and sometimes take some flack for it but other than some small differences, plants are plants they all require the same principal needs. I have lots of experience with aquatic plants and other terrestrial plants. Its all really the same just change some lighting, nutrient ratio's and medium. You give a gardener like my grandmother(rest in peace) a plant and she could grow the shit out of it almost like it told her what it wanted.... in fact that's pretty much it, they tell ya what they want.

 

[1diesel1]

I would say as growers who have used these forums for over a decade that scientific fact and papers are usually something we take skeptical till its proven in the real world. The exact opposite of what you said @RippedTorn. Look at all the bullshit the LED guys threw around when they first came on the scene and it was proven time and time again that the tech wasnt there at the time compared to the lights we were using even tho all the science and claims they threw around told a different story. Why so many of us have the skeptic view of LED lights in 2018/2019 even tho the tech is actually getting where it should be. People have to understand they did that to themselves. It isn't just blind hate. That is just 1 example of many.


Over the years we have had to sift through so much marketing BS disguised as science its hard to believe a paper until you try it. Why I take everything at face value. Then try it if I want to try it if it sounds interesting. The big mistake is spouting off some paper or some research without giving it some seat time yourself and just posting it like its truths. This has happened time and time again for years. I like the discussion and the ideas but the truth of the matter is most of this stuff is coming from a different plant and doesnt always apply to our exact crop and sometimes it does. Case specific.

I always give plants a plain water diet the last 7-13 days. Real world experience is: they yield the same, taste better, look better, and it costs me less on nutes and my bottom line. I have grown and smoked enough plants over the years where a paper isn't going to tell me something different. No matter the science to back it up. That is just me. Stubborn? Yes. Skeptic? You bet your ass.

I would say the people that latch onto the hot scientific paper of the moment or exact color temp of lights ect are more of the newer growers (not saying all of them, respect for the certain dudes) who have this idea that they can do it better then tried and true methods to get some validity on the internet. That is fine if that is the lane you want to drive in. The thing is I have seen so many times when people spend more money on a 4 x 4 tent, not including time, then i have on multi room setups to get 4oz of weed and argue about spectrum, light height, new sups, best nute brand, best light company, systems, media ect. It goes on and on while they have 2 grows under their belts and have never grow a plant outside of these crops and don't understand most of this shit get answered with experience and why the more experienced people talk about how you are wasting time and money depending on what you are after.

 

[Rootbound]

The problem with the Internet growing community is that numerics and corporate propaganda are the only two forms of science accepted. Can a lab printout denote the difference between nitrogen in plant crll tissue and nitrogen fertilizer sprayed on a plant tissue? Apparently the internet doesn't care to denote a difference between plant fibers and unprocessed fertilizers with have not yet been processed into plant fibers.

The science of observation and human data acquisition is not acknowledged by internet pot growers. Only computers can collect, decode evaluate and present data anymore, now that Cannabis is an Instagram pop culture accessory!

Observation is real science,not a bandaid over short comings,not a crippled tool to prove any point. Online Cannabis growers are disconnected from this observable reality. You shouldn't need a microscope or a lab test to perform science. I dont need a Brix meter to tell which Hashplant tastes like Im smoking stale old cheap Mexican bubblegum mixed with Research Chemicals, and which Hashplant tastes like sugary rich Cannabis Sativa Hashplant variety hash resin when smoked.

Oh and in case it matters, the one that tastes like specific brands of nutes always has a shittier, dirtier "just smoked a plastic 2 litre bottle" high, weighs more per volume, lower potency and fucks up your breathing instead of improving it. I hope people that don't flush realize no one with even minor breathing problems can smoke their plastic bud, while those same people with breathing problems actually use my natural bud to stay off Rx inhalers, Flonase, etc. Fucking night and day difference between clean herb and dirty shit, I'll never grasp the level of denial behind plastic weed growers.

Another really positive reply from you.... lol

 

[OldManRiver]

Can a lab printout denote the difference between nitrogen in plant crll tissue and nitrogen fertilizer sprayed on a plant tissue? Apparently the internet doesn't care to denote a difference between plant fibers and unprocessed fertilizers with have not yet been processed into plant fibers.

A lab analysis can do exactly that. The distribution of nitrogen ions in the sap, and the resulting molecules in which those ions are ultimately used is actually pretty well known, down to the level of the precise chemical reactions involved.

This is a layman's synopsis from an extension office. You can trust that there are research papers behind every assertion, which should be easily googable. https://extension2.missouri.edu/wq259

I decided to read up a bit just now, and found this, Why organic? which I think paints a more sophisticated picture. The first paragraph,

"For years land managers, from the farmer to the scientist, have disputed the benefits of organic versus inorganic nitrogen. There is no dispute that nitrogen is an essential element to plants. There is also no argument that plants can’t tell the difference between organic and chemical nitrogen. The controversy is essentially about carbon."

For a single, or finite number of crops, chemicals work very well, for less cost and effort. For the very long term, organic offers more sustained yields, according to the author. I think his analysis is reasonable, and I certainly follow it mildly myself. I build soil with compost and manure, and am light with the chems.

For someone growing in pots, since you're not reusing the soil, why on earth would you waste the time, effort, and loss of control?

In light of the author's statement, from a guy who obvious knows his shit, since there is no chemical difference in the nitrogen from the plant's standpoint, there can logically be no difference in taste.

 

[Evr1sFavKush]

Yeah, it's way more complicated than just flushing!

My only bad burning harvest was kind of flushed to death and burned black and sooty. Just disgusting.

You need to take a look at tobacco. There are a lot of studies!
High potassium and Calcium make a clean white/grey Ash. Black Ash is from poor soils with low mineral content.

110% agree in my opinion. My black harvests always happened when I flushed excessively and too early which is probably common when you start learning. The longer I flushed the worse they got.

Imo you got a plant that is uptaking different nutrients some in excess and some deficient to begin with due to grower error. Some deficiencies you won’t even see for a minute, then you’re deficient in it at start of flush and what do you know, those buds look nasty two weeks from now LOL. If at a minimum you don’t supply the immobile nutrients during the finish you’re stepping on your dick. They need them to continue their process in my opinion

I’ve tested the flush issue with my own stuff. I’ve had non flushed fed to the end weed burn super white. But it doesn’t have flavor and can make you cough. White ash doesn’t mean it smokes right just means it had enough food and wasn’t starved in my non scientific backed opinion. We are trying to grow a plant that wasn’t meant to be smoked with the intent to smoke it. I think that’s an important difference. Nice to see someone notice the same trend on the black ash