Official coco flush thread..

  • Thread starter Surfr
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Obtuse would mean Im not explaining exactly what i mean or do so insensitively.
Huh? I think we're using different definitions of this word.
Pretty sure I exactly explained what I was trying to convey that contradicts your logic...sensitively or not. Im not here to make people happy, im trying to help people grow better. Don't want the advice, don't take it. Keep flushing however yall think is better.. Ill keep improving my methods...
Sensitivity has got a thing to do with this. I asked you a question hoping to better understand you, because that's pretty much the whole reason I'm on sites like this. You asked me a question, I thought because you wanted to better understand me. Turns out that all you really want to do is stomp around and insist that I and others here are flat out wrong for using words in a way you don't like. That's not 'advice' and frankly, that's not very helpful.

Are you saying that I, and others who've chimed in, are trying to get people to grow worse?

WTF?
 
true grit

true grit

6,269
313
I answered your questions, and with detailed responses, as i did to everyone else. I asked why uptake is different- because its not and clarified why. Using up whats in the tissues is uptake. And you need plant tissue to be in appropriate range for that to work best. If you were trying to take in info you wouldn't be spending posts refuting experience, and science with the fact you cant "tell" a difference from a few flushes. instead you'd rather get your feelings hurt and think im stomping around cuz im tired of trying to help people that evidentally dont care. its why they call me true grit, I dont bs or sugarcoat shit and im just blunt, to the point,rude or what have you at times.

Im not sayin you are wrong for using words i dont like, I said you are wrong for saying you don't need to pH. And if that means giving growers poor information for worse results, then yes- thats what im insinuating.
 
W

waywardson

91
0
I like the idea of feeding calcium all the way to the end, even if one does cut out N and P somewhere before that. I had not thought of using calcium carbonate to accomplish that. I did not want to use calcium nitrate because of the nitrogen, was a little afraid of calcium chloride because I wasn't sure how that much chloride would do the plant...but calcium carbonate...excellent idea.

I was reading some info from the tobacco industry, where how it burns and the ash that is left is of significant importance to them. If one removes to much calcium/magnesium from the plant it loses the ability to completely burn all of the carbon...the ash does not end up white. If I find that article I will link it.

anyways...thanks true grit. i have a new trial to run.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
I answered your questions, and with detailed responses, as i did to everyone else. I asked why uptake is different- because its not and clarified why. Using up whats in the tissues is uptake. And you need plant tissue to be in appropriate range for that to work best. If you were trying to take in info you wouldn't be spending posts refuting experience, and science with the fact you cant "tell" a difference from a few flushes. instead you'd rather get your feelings hurt and think im stomping around cuz im tired of trying to help people that evidentally dont care. its why they call me true grit, I dont bs or sugarcoat shit and im just blunt, to the point,rude or what have you at times.

Im not sayin you are wrong for using words i dont like, I said you are wrong for saying you don't need to pH. And if that means giving growers poor information for worse results, then yes- thats what im insinuating.
Then you're applying label that not just to me, as I'm sure you know. You're applying that to every grower who's experienced with coco who tells people not to bother pHing the water they use for flushing.

I want to make crystal clear to you that you are not taking up the information I've given you regarding MY experiments with pHing flush water. I did two entire GROWS that I finished by pHing the water. There was no difference in performance (yield), or, most importantly, the smoke (quality). Now, if I have the smoke from the non-pH'ed available to sample right next to the pH'd (flush water) and the only differences that I or anyone else I share my smoke with can detect have to do with the strains, then I can state unequivocally there is no difference.

But I am very clearly wrong because you say so, and you've backed up your words with... your words.

Since you wanna hit us with the science, how about you tell us all about pH in the rhizosphere and whether or not the plant can have any effect on its own rhizosphere?
 
crom

crom

Cannobi Genetics
Supporter
2,234
263
So what are your thoughts on using a flushing agent and not using a flushing agent? I hear some Farmers that say they use tap, RO, phed, not phed, H20 to flush, but how much do the flushing agents work for us? Just curious. Also what brands have been used with good results? As far as phed flushing, I ph because I'm ocd. lol I don't see an issue with dumping some ph down into my res or whatever. I would rather just ph to be safe. I haven't taken the time to do a side by side test yet, but I would assume that phed flushing would be a good idea if you can afford the time and money needed to do so.

Also I was curious what the reason for flushing with a quarter strength solution is? Obviously not for the final flush, but I have read that a 1/4 strength nute solution is a better flush. How come this is? Is it equivalent to the flush with a flushing agent because of the chelation?

Cheers,
Crom
 
W

waywardson

91
0
the debate actually comes down to what taste better...totally killing the fan leaves and almost hurting the buds themselves...or flushing the coco and letting the plants use up some of the nutes that make for bad taste, i.e. N and P.

All food taste better when it contains a full regimen of minerals...I do not think there is any debate in that. Humans need the same minerals as plants and it is the shit we get fed that does not contain those that we label as empty calories.

Now weed, well we smoke it for the most part. So does it still need those same minerals? Some say no...flush til the fan leaves die. I, on the other hand, say yes...we want a lot of the minerals to still be present for better taste (and we get that with organics whether we want to or not) and for potency. My opinion that is a plant with dying fan leaves has already lost potency...you have stressed the plant and it cannot be as potent as a totally healthy plant (others will disagree with this point).

What I want to do with flush is remove the excess (emphasis on excess) N and P but at the same time not eliminate all of the minerals like Ca, Mg, SO4 and all of the micros. To do so means that you cannot fuck with the pH of the media itself...which means you should pH your flush water...which in my opinion should be low on N and P but nothing else.

That is my opinion, it is not the opinion of others. Which is right? I say there is no such thing as right or wrong, those are man made concepts. Try both ways, decide which you like best and go with it, end of story.
 
true grit

true grit

6,269
313
Then you're applying label that not just to me, as I'm sure you know. You're applying that to every grower who's experienced with coco who tells people not to bother pHing the water they use for flushing.

I want to make crystal clear to you that you are not taking up the information I've given you regarding MY experiments with pHing flush water. I did two entire GROWS that I finished by pHing the water. There was no difference in performance (yield), or, most importantly, the smoke (quality). Now, if I have the smoke from the non-pH'ed available to sample right next to the pH'd (flush water) and the only differences that I or anyone else I share my smoke with can detect have to do with the strains, then I can state unequivocally there is no difference.

But I am very clearly wrong because you say so, and you've backed up your words with... your words.

Since you wanna hit us with the science, how about you tell us all about pH in the rhizosphere and whether or not the plant can have any effect on its own rhizosphere?

Yes I applied it to everyone saying this. Are you continually asking teh same damn thing for a reason? I already explained tissue culture samples, fruit samples, sap samples, etc all have direct correlation in tissue ph to the rhizosphere and its ph.
Done wasting my time. Have fun doing what you are doing.

So what are your thoughts on using a flushing agent and not using a flushing agent? I hear some Farmers that say they use tap, RO, phed, not phed, H20 to flush, but how much do the flushing agents work for us? Just curious. Also what brands have been used with good results? As far as phed flushing, I ph because I'm ocd. lol I don't see an issue with dumping some ph down into my res or whatever. I would rather just ph to be safe. I haven't taken the time to do a side by side test yet, but I would assume that phed flushing would be a good idea if you can afford the time and money needed to do so.

Also I was curious what the reason for flushing with a quarter strength solution is? Obviously not for the final flush, but I have read that a 1/4 strength nute solution is a better flush. How come this is? Is it equivalent to the flush with a flushing agent because of the chelation?

Cheers,
Crom

I've done it both ways, and i do both currently. My flush begins with a heavy chelated agent and cal. Then works to less flush agent by day 3-4 and from there its RO and cal, then i drop ppm to almost nothin (40-50ppm) for last flush days. You can literally see the change from a smooth flush to overflush (death of plants coming). No more than 7-9 days with this process.

I use RO in my grows, I ph all the way to the end...has nothing to do with money or ppm- has all to do with flushing correctly.

Haven't heard that 1/4 strength is better, but like wayward is discussing, certain nutrients are vital for uptake and cell division and processing. It would be a tough experiment to try and isolate which ones block uptake, fully process, or lock up in a plant during flush (since most micro/macros are supplied via lump base mix). Until we can break down which we want and need, ill keep flushing fairly normally. lol.


I like the idea of feeding calcium all the way to the end, even if one does cut out N and P somewhere before that. I had not thought of using calcium carbonate to accomplish that. I did not want to use calcium nitrate because of the nitrogen, was a little afraid of calcium chloride because I wasn't sure how that much chloride would do the plant...but calcium carbonate...excellent idea.

I was reading some info from the tobacco industry, where how it burns and the ash that is left is of significant importance to them. If one removes to much calcium/magnesium from the plant it loses the ability to completely burn all of the carbon...the ash does not end up white. If I find that article I will link it.

anyways...thanks true grit. i have a new trial to run.

For sure bro. The calplex is organic and no N or crap, so i prefer to use it. As Obs was saying, using unsulfured molasses will evidentally block out N uptake, so I would assume around wk4-5 when you add a pk boost and carbs, you block out most N if you aren't pumpin carbs prior. At that point my nute regimen with any N(base) is already 1/3-1/2 strength. SO makes sense with a smooth flush. And high K is gonna aide in using up the remaining carbs. I'll be making some changes here soon after hearing a few things from Obs.

Makes sense, and like i was saying depending on base nute, most time mag aint needed. Shit cal aint needed that much either when dialed.

Glad ya found some of this info helpful instead of telling me im insensitive and wrong. LOL.
 
Blaze

Blaze

2,006
263
I've smoked Sea's buds and they smoke great. Good taste, burns clean, certainly not lacking it potency. Don't knock it until you try it. A gradual reduction of nutrients followed by compost tea and carbs and finishing with just water is exactly the same as how I run my organic soil grows and it works great.

Also pH of the medium does not directly reflect pH of the plant tissues. They are usually pretty close but not identical. Often then internal pH can be different than the medium, as can EC and nutrient concentrations. Actually, EC and nutrient concentrations in the tissues are often radically different than medium concentrations and internal nutrient concentrations can reach far higher levels than the concentration in the medium.

I get weekly sap readings (tissues samples) on my plants and have done so for many years. Cannabis is extremely different than other plants in regards to nutrient uptake and how much it uses - comparing it to how other plants react is an invalid argument.
 
budboy299

budboy299

684
43
Oly wish I could of tried some or Sea's stuff!! I know I used to ph the flush water but then tried non-ph'd flush and found no difference at all.

Blaze..."Cannabis is extremely different than other plants in regards to nutrient uptake and how much it uses - comparing it to how other plants react is an invalid argument." is probably one of the most accurate statements going!

Certain aspects will always be similar to other plants but going with such a blanket statement as "it works on other plants" may apply in general but in specifics you really need to look at the individual type of plant. Hell even different stains of cannabis react differently. Some can take high nutes and some burn to hell. Some finish quick and others slow.

I do know that the people I give my stuff to compared ph'd to non ph'd flush water and said they could see no difference at all. To simply say that I (and others) are wrong because your experience is different, is not right.

You may ph your final flush water and get great results, and have input from ppl you gave to who have compared both. I do not ph my final flush water and get great results, and have input from ppl who have compared the two.

I do not think either one is wrong, I am simply saying that I believe that it makes no difference.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Oh, he's saying we're wrong because he has science on his side, and he's going back to food crop studies done in the '20s.
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
my take on this is pretty simple

flushing my plants with the un phd water here would mean they would be getting hit with something in the mid to high 7 range (my well water fluctuates) theoretically that is going to shock the shit out of them

why would I do that in the final days leading up to harvest?
 
420Gator

420Gator

1,281
83
i dont know the correct answer but if adjusting the ph of my water worked throughout the grow why wouldnt i do it in flush? do the plants know theyre about to be chopped so they just quit caring what ph the water is?
 
budboy299

budboy299

684
43
Plants will still continue to take in water within a certain range. I used to water outdoor plants when I was on an artesian well with water in the upper 7's. The plants did not die or even appear stressed. They certainly may not have been taking in any additional nutrients from the soil but they certainly did not die. And that is in essence what we are doing with the flush.

We are forcing the plant to not rely on external nutes but rather to use them up from within themselves.

Its similar to human beings. If we deprive ourselves of certain elements like quality proteins, our bodies will scavenge from within themselves whatever they can to continue. If it continues for long enough, we deplete our reserves and will eventually die.

What I am trying to do is stop the uptake from the growing medium, into the plant itself. Not trying to stop the plant from metabolizing its reserves. No nutes in the medium -> no uptake trough the roots into the plant. Remember too that we are talking coco coir here, soil will always have nutrients present in some amount even when the plants are finishing.

There are some who go as far as to actually ph their water so far out of the plants range as to lockup any additonal intake of anything. I cannot see the point in that because the purpose of the flush is to remove the nutes from the growing medium so as there is nothing to take up.

When I was experimenting with this I even took plants into a completely dark room for an extra 2 weeks just to see if the chloraphyll could totally be depleted to give the plant buds a blond look. It did somewhat but totally not worth the time. So yes I have experimented quite a bit in finishing.

For the record, I am not saying that you definitely should not ph, I simply have found over the years that it makes no difference. Or at least so little difference as to be indistinguisable to ppl. Believe me, I do not skip ph'ing the final flush water to save what amounts to a penny in acid. I found that the most important thing it to flush with gallons and gallons of water to get rid of the nutes...period!

Moving on from this as I have said why I do what I do...may each do what they feel is the right thing for their plants
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
Plants will still continue to take in water within a certain range. I used to water outdoor plants when I was on an artesian well with water in the upper 7's. The plants did not die or even appear stressed. They certainly may not have been taking in any additional nutrients from the soil but they certainly did not die. And that is in essence what we are doing with the flush.

We are forcing the plant to not rely on external nutes but rather to use them up from within themselves.

Its similar to human beings. If we deprive ourselves of certain elements like quality proteins, our bodies will scavenge from within themselves whatever they can to continue. If it continues for long enough, we deplete our reserves and will eventually die.

For the record, I am not saying that you definitely should not ph, I simply have found over the years that it makes no difference. Or at least so little difference as to be indistinguisable to ppl. Believe me, I do not skip ph'ing the final flush water to save what amounts to a penny in acid. I found that the most important thing it to flush with tons of water to get rid of the nutes...period!


remember too outdoors in dirt is entirely different then my top drip or ebb/flow tables in rockwool

and a constant watering of 7 is much different then a constant watering of 5.8 and then swicthing to 7.8
 
budboy299

budboy299

684
43
Nah Motherlode, where I used to be outdoors the well brought up so much calcium and lime that when you washed your outdoor windows, they would be white when they dried.
The rain water was around the mid 6 ph range and the well was around 7.8ph
so it swung pretty good.

Everyone just do what works for you, but NO ONE should slam people for the way they do it for themselves (especially if they have taken the time to compare results)!
 
Hopefull Stoner

Hopefull Stoner

235
43
What do you mean by this? I only ask because you said that you believed it was your tastiest run. I really want my buds to taste nice and would love to know more about that. Thanks!

Peace and love,
OK


another way to do the coco results is to start in a 20 oz cup that is then placed into a 1 gallon container when it's time to transplant.

when it's time to transplant again go into a organic soil mix pot size determined by how big you want it. so 3-5 gallon pot/bucket would be best. use bat quano to feed with. you'll get the coco results and finish with

a tasty medical grade smoke when done. and this wasn't my idea although i did think of doing this. i know a med provider who does this on the regular. he gets yields, flavor, and an organic product.
:damnhippie:
 
true grit

true grit

6,269
313
I've smoked Sea's buds and they smoke great. Good taste, burns clean, certainly not lacking it potency. Don't knock it until you try it. A gradual reduction of nutrients followed by compost tea and carbs and finishing with just water is exactly the same as how I run my organic soil grows and it works great.

Also pH of the medium does not directly reflect pH of the plant tissues. They are usually pretty close but not identical. Often then internal pH can be different than the medium, as can EC and nutrient concentrations. Actually, EC and nutrient concentrations in the tissues are often radically different than medium concentrations and internal nutrient concentrations can reach far higher levels than the concentration in the medium.

I get weekly sap readings (tissues samples) on my plants and have done so for many years. Cannabis is extremely different than other plants in regards to nutrient uptake and how much it uses - comparing it to how other plants react is an invalid argument.


Honestly don't care what the buds smoke like, look like or smell like. If you don't follow processes fully, you aren't following processes fully. I smoke plenty of dank from other folks that tastes fine, looks good and is strong- doesn't mean its grown to the utmost...

I have run organic soils too (my first love), and this coco is no where near organic soil as a medium simply because of uptake. We are essentially running hydro with a medium, uptake will be faster, results from changes more noticable and quicker. Its not like soil, where ya break down way early and can flush forever and the humic/fulvics take care of any inconsistencies in the flush. This is more direct.

I didn't say the internal would be exact, but as you said- there is a correlation (most test ive seen are up to say +/- 1.0, where if properly chelated is fine). Never said anything bout EC and build up, just referred to internal pH for reference of uptake. And im sure you have seen if you input in appropriate ph range, the internal is probably in range too. So again, if tissue levels can have higher nutrient concentrations, why the hell would you let that 'similar' ph value go out of range when you NEED to process whats internal?

Am I going in circles with logic here? where the fuck is the bangin the head on the wall icon?
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Honestly don't care what the buds smoke like, look like or smell like.
Whoa... Really? You did not just say that, did you?
If you don't follow processes fully, you aren't following processes fully. I smoke plenty of dank from other folks that tastes fine, looks good and is strong- doesn't mean its grown to the utmost...

I have run organic soils too (my first love), and this coco is no where near organic soil as a medium simply because of uptake. We are essentially running hydro with a medium, uptake will be faster, results from changes more noticable and quicker. Its not like soil, where ya break down way early and can flush forever and the humic/fulvics take care of any inconsistencies in the flush. This is more direct.

I didn't say the internal would be exact, but as you said- there is a correlation (most test ive seen are up to say +/- 1.0, where if properly chelated is fine). Never said anything bout EC and build up, just referred to internal pH for reference of uptake. And im sure you have seen if you input in appropriate ph range, the internal is probably in range too. So again, if tissue levels can have higher nutrient concentrations, why the hell would you let that 'similar' ph value go out of range when you NEED to process whats internal?

Am I going in circles with logic here? where the fuck is the bangin the head on the wall icon?

It's not that you're going in circles with logic, it's that you seem to refuse to accept that there is a high degree of artistry when one enters into husbandry of any living thing. This explains why certain fishkeepers can breed anything in absolutely the wrong conditions, according to science, yet others can't keep anything alive even though they're doing everything the science tells them to do. It explains why some people continually breed and grow the dankest, bestest shit, under CFLs, yet others can't seem to get a single cross right.

If you're in any scientific field at all, then I know that you are much like other scientists I know and have found yourself caught up within a scientific paradigm from which you don't seem to be able to wrest yourself free, because what others are talking about just doesn't make sense, not when held against the science. I'll tell you what I tell them--science can't account for everything, and variability factors is the least of it.

Believe it or not, I read as much as I possibly can and try to absorb as much information as I possibly can, from as many sources as I possibly can. Does that mean I'm going to believe you just because you're so insistent that your way is the best way? No, it sure doesn't. And that's because I've learned how to tease apart good information from bad, and I use *that* litmus to measure all information against, while working hard to keep my mind open and my own ability to learn from the best in the field sharp. So, when I smoke something that I think is spectacular, I ask questions, lots and lots of questions. And that plays a very large role in how I've arrived at doing things the way I do.

I'm not going to say you are flat out wrong, just that I disagree with the bother of pHing those last few waterings (I don't actually "flush" my coco by passing 2x-4x the pot volume of water through the media) makes any real difference in the final product--not in final yield, not in final flavor and quality. I am getting much closer to hitting yields that I want consistently, and, this is absolutely key for me, am not sacrificing quality of product to get the yield. I am truly crafting a product here, that's how I feel about this.
 
true grit

true grit

6,269
313
Yes i did just say that, because I sample bud from people like you all the time...yeah the "danks"...and they are never that dank, but they sure are proud of their "craft". Much like you...and when you start asking questions, you start seeing where they cut corners- much like you....Im not insisting you do my way at all, never said its best. I said scientifically- its most keen, logical and functional in the basics of uptake.

Blaze came around, and proved my point. Not just from experience, from science and logic to that science. If you can't see that there is a correlation and that your "craft" is not utilizing that- then thats your deal. Blaze pointed out that they are relative and that you can have excess build up in tissues...why the fuck would you not pH when those need to be processed? Again, logical questions but you'd rather spend time trying to attack me and prove a personal point that your way is so on point you don't need to pH like everyone else. lol. Everyone else here seems to see the logic but you.

I don't flush 2-4x volume either, don't do a lotta shit you do and other peoples do...but again thats part of my "artistry" (chick word) for getting biz done and protecting my trade. Tried to help, you don't want, i could give a fuck less.

Im not in paradigm, im just biting my tongue from other things id like to say.
 
Top Bottom