Official coco flush thread..

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

Blaze

2,006
263
I think you guys are splitting hairs. So long as pH is in the general range the plant will assimilate what it has stored in it's tissues just fine. If you've been running your system at say 6.4, and you flush with water at 6.6 I really doubt it will have much of a negative effect. Sure, if you suddenly hit them with water at 8.0 that is gonna fuck em up big time. However you guys are missing one important part in this argument IMO: what pH are you actually running you systems and flushing at? For all you know you both are flushing at the same pH and don't even realize it.
 
W

waywardson

91
0
Personally my goal is to totally eliminate artistry from the craft and replace it with science making my product repeatable time after time after time.

I do agree that some people have a true gift for all kinds of things including growing weed. But if they go by instinct and continue to change things constantly without considering interactions with other variables then they are going to get negative surprises from time to time.

Science is not perfect and will not ever totally explain everything in this world. But if you have a process that produces some result you can use scientific method to continuously improve that process. That is what six sigma, the toyota production system, etc are all about. Maintaining pH all of the way until the end at least eliminates one variable if nothing else. And for the record I maintain pH around 5.8 and my water is 7.6...maybe not enough to kill the plant but definitely a big enough change to alter the uptake of micros vs Ca, K, etc. Of course, technically we should be worried more about alkilinity of the water more than we are pH...my alkalinity is around 70 ppm...high enough to raise the pH of my media if I didn't pH it.

But that is me and how I want to do things. I have no problem with people choosing another method. Just pointing out that there is some reasonable logic behind controlling the pH of the flush water. I have yet to hear any real logic behind not pHing other than it makes no difference...given no difference I want the fewest variables possible.
 
true grit

true grit

6,265
313
I think you guys are splitting hairs. So long as pH is in the general range the plant will assimilate what it has stored in it's tissues just fine. If you've been running your system at say 6.4, and you flush with water at 6.6 I really doubt it will have much of a negative effect. Sure, if you suddenly hit them with water at 8.0 that is gonna fuck em up big time. However you guys are missing one important part in this argument IMO: what pH are you actually running you systems and flushing at? For all you know you both are flushing at the same pH and don't even realize it.

I would agree whole heartedly- for soil. Coco is a different beast with much faster reaction to changes. The ideal range is around 5.8-5.9....when you start going over 6.0 you start locking out, under and you start getting same issues and with coco its MUCH faster. Which is the point- if you are in range around 5.8 your entire grow, then say fuck it- that random 6.0-8.0 will shock your shit like you said...hell anything anything out of those ranges will start issues/slow processing. In soil you have a good 1.0-1.5 buffer, i mean ive fed all across the soil range and when chelated its WAY less an issue.

I run RO (0 ppm) water ph'd at 5.8 from start to finish btw.

Personally my goal is to totally eliminate artistry from the craft and replace it with science making my product repeatable time after time after time.

I do agree that some people have a true gift for all kinds of things including growing weed. But if they go by instinct and continue to change things constantly without considering interactions with other variables then they are going to get negative surprises from time to time.

Science is not perfect and will not ever totally explain everything in this world. But if you have a process that produces some result you can use scientific method to continuously improve that process. That is what six sigma, the toyota production system, etc are all about. Maintaining pH all of the way until the end at least eliminates one variable if nothing else. And for the record I maintain pH around 5.8 and my water is 7.6...maybe not enough to kill the plant but definitely a big enough change to alter the uptake of micros vs Ca, K, etc. Of course, technically we should be worried more about alkilinity of the water more than we are pH...my alkalinity is around 70 ppm...high enough to raise the pH of my media if I didn't pH it.

But that is me and how I want to do things. I have no problem with people choosing another method. Just pointing out that there is some reasonable logic behind controlling the pH of the flush water. I have yet to hear any real logic behind not pHing other than it makes no difference...given no difference I want the fewest variables possible.

All I can start with is - 100 homie. Spot on...this is not my hobby. This is my job and when its that- you eliminate variables, and work on consistency across the spectrum. You guarantee quality, production and yields. Sealed rooms, no outstanding abiotic stresses, and controlled environment you can start to dial your processes. Find where not flushing in range is an issue, or hell look at your plants and be able to tell when your ph meter needs recalibration. I started with a wide spectrum of variables and slowly narrowed those and im still updating to improve and eliminate more variables.

Like i said, its about folks not growing to the utmost. Im not there yet and can admit it and learn daily...especially where logic is concerned. Not doing a process out of laziness or lack of care because of being pleased with product is not in my book. I don't care how pleased patients are- I never am, cuz there is always a way to improve. Folks should take that to heart. And also know in my quest of eliminating variables I probably kill more plants via trial and error than any of the folks who treat it like an art- they are fucking plants.
 
Blaze

Blaze

2,006
263
Personally my goal is to totally eliminate artistry from the craft

Wow, I could not disagree more on that point waywardson. I do agree with you that understanding the science behind what we are doing, and being objective and logical is extremely important. I try to be as scientific as possible with my growing so I understand the "why" and "how" behind everything that I am doing. I take a lot of notes, gather a lot of data, conduct many experiments, and spend a lot of time reading agriculture text book and studies to further my goals and understanding in regards to growing. Being able to verify and repeat your results is a key element in being a good grower no doubt, but if you focus ONLY on the science you are seriously missing the bigger picture. Creativity, ingenuity, being able to think outside the box and beyond the pure science are all very important. In my opinion the best growers and breeders are ALWAYS the ones who have an artistic touch because they tend to be more open minded and creative and more capable of lateral thinking. Far to often scientists become extremely narrow minded and are essentially "blinded by science."

Logic and science can help you grow bigger and better plants more efficiently and to maximize those aspect of your grow, but the more subjective and artistic elements of flavor, aroma, and appearance are equally important. Who cares if you are growing plants to their "upmost potential" from a scientific point of view if the bud doesn't smoke good? If you bud smokes like shit, or you are not satisfying your patients or customers then what's the point? You could be hitting 3 gpw and have some crazy super-efficient room built, but if the bud tastes and looks generic, you are not going to impress anyone, especially someone like me that places a high values on uniqueness and originality. The bottom line is the consumer doesn't give a shit about how scientific your grow is or how logical you are, they care about the quality and how good it looks and how good it smokes.

How do you go about quantifying something as subjective as flavor? Can you come up with a scientific formula for "good taste and smell"? How about statistics on what "looks good"? Can you chart originality on a graph? Of course you can't - because science no longer applies to these variables. Even potency is very subjective as everyone has a unique brain chemistry and reacts differently to different strains. Potency tests help get you a general idea, but you still only see a piece of the bigger pictures, since there are so many more variables and chemicals in play other than just straight THC content.

Just look at the beer industry for an example of this. Companies like Coors and Anheuser-Busch may have millions of dollars of research behind them, and employ very advanced, scientific methods to brew their beer, but their quality is shit. Everything the make is pure crap, completely lacking in flavor, originality and soul; about the only thing their beer is good for is target practice. Smaller breweries like Anderson Valley and North Coast do not have an army of scientists at their disposal like Coors and Anheuser-Busch do, but they have creativity, ingenuity and an artistic touch. Because of this the quality of their product is far superior to ANYTHING that Coors or Anheuser-Busch has every produced or will ever produce. The same is true in the cannabis industry.

In my experience (and this comment is not aimed at you waywardson or you True Grit so please do not take offense) the growers who focus JUST on things like the science, and yield, and efficiency grow very poor quality buds most of the time. People like that often simply lack the connoisseur touch and the ability to see beyond pure numbers and statistics. If you do not care about what the consumer or medical patients you grow for thinks or wants and do not care about how your buds smokes then you are a total failure as a grower. Even the great breeders like DJ Short and Luther Burbank speak of their breeding as an art and a craft rather than as a science. If all everyone did, especially when growing, was go by just the established science, can you imagine how boring everything would be? There would be little innovation, little change, no uniqueness, and no originality. All we would have would be just plain, boring, unoriginal and soul-less run of the mill crap from now until eternity.

Anyway just my two cents. I'll stop side tracking this thread now.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Im not in paradigm, im just biting my tongue from other things id like to say.
Same here.

What I'm not getting is how you're suddenly a coco expert when you've been running it for, what... less than 6mos? Yet here you are, so very insistent that you are absolutely, unequivocally right in everything you say.

Don't you worry, TG, you won't be having to sample my bud, I would never wish such a terrible thing on someone.
 
true grit

true grit

6,265
313
Wow, I could not disagree more on that point waywardson. I do agree with you that understanding the science behind what we are doing, and being objective and logical is extremely important. I try to be as scientific as possible with my growing so I understand the "why" and "how" behind everything that I am doing. I take a lot of notes, gather a lot of data, conduct many experiments, and spend a lot of time reading agriculture text book and studies to further my goals and understanding in regards to growing. Being able to verify and repeat your results is a key element in being a good grower no doubt, but if you focus ONLY on the science you are seriously missing the bigger picture. Creativity, ingenuity, being able to think outside the box and beyond the pure science are all very important. In my opinion the best growers and breeders are ALWAYS the ones who have an artistic touch because they tend to be more open minded and creative and more capable of lateral thinking. Far to often scientists become extremely narrow minded and are essentially "blinded by science."

Logic and science can help you grow bigger and better plants more efficiently and to maximize those aspect of your grow, but the more subjective and artistic elements of flavor, aroma, and appearance are equally important. Who cares if you are growing plants to their "upmost potential" from a scientific point of view if the bud doesn't smoke good? If you bud smokes like shit, or you are not satisfying your patients or customers then what's the point? You could be hitting 3 gpw and have some crazy super-efficient room built, but if the bud tastes and looks generic, you are not going to impress anyone, especially someone like me that places a high values on uniqueness and originality. The bottom line is the consumer doesn't give a shit about how scientific your grow is or how logical you are, they care about the quality and how good it looks and how good it smokes.

How do you go about quantifying something as subjective as flavor? Can you come up with a scientific formula for "good taste and smell"? How about statistics on what "looks good"? Can you chart originality on a graph? Of course you can't - because science no longer applies to these variables. Even potency is very subjective as everyone has a unique brain chemistry and reacts differently to different strains. Potency tests help get you a general idea, but you still only see a piece of the bigger pictures, since there are so many more variables and chemicals in play other than just straight THC content.

Just look at the beer industry for an example of this. Companies like Coors and Anheuser-Busch may have millions of dollars of research behind them, and employ very advanced, scientific methods to brew their beer, but their quality is shit. Everything the make is pure crap, completely lacking in flavor, originality and soul; about the only thing their beer is good for is target practice. Smaller breweries like Anderson Valley and North Coast do not have an army of scientists at their disposal like Coors and Anheuser-Busch do, but they have creativity, ingenuity and an artistic touch. Because of this the quality of their product is far superior to ANYTHING that Coors or Anheuser-Busch has every produced or will ever produce. The same is true in the cannabis industry.

In my experience (and this comment is not aimed at you waywardson or you True Grit so please do not take offense) the growers who focus JUST on things like the science, and yield, and efficiency grow very poor quality buds most of the time. People like that often simply lack the connoisseur touch and the ability to see beyond pure numbers and statistics. If you do not care about what the consumer or medical patients you grow for thinks or wants and do not care about how your buds smokes then you are a total failure as a grower. Even the great breeders like DJ Short and Luther Burbank speak of their breeding as an art and a craft rather than as a science. If all everyone did, especially when growing, was go by just the established science, can you imagine how boring everything would be? There would be little innovation, little change, no uniqueness, and no originality. All we would have would be just plain, boring, unoriginal and soul-less run of the mill crap from now until eternity.

Anyway just my two cents. I'll stop side tracking this thread now.

Blaze- I think this is very well and eloquently put- no offense taken in the least, but you are going off teh whole assumption that using science and consistency negates the other things that you mentioned- and it doesn't. Good growers can achieve all of those- with consistency.

I don't sacrifice quality, aroma, flavor or potency at all. In fact I nailed those things first, and use those baselines to adjust. Those are key, because if yours buds suck- having pounds and pounds that don't sell does nothing. Pretty much like most of the game here in CO.

You are assuming that when folks like wayward and myself talk about breaking this down to a science, that we are solely going for yield,production and consistency which couldn't be further from the fact. I use science to make sure my product continues to stay in top demand. It just also happens that when you work on consistency, you can also improve the other elements...such as yield, production and consistent TOP NOTCH quality.

I sacrifice none of those, and still continue to improve. Just because someone can use the logic and science does not mean they are sacrificing elsewhere. To be the best you need to do both. I came from this being solely a passion, and have found with more concentration and effort that passion can develop into much more. But you can't let consumerism effect product quality.

In turn, now that I have been able to eliminate some variables, some "necessary chem products", etc...I will now be taking my organic know how and probably will be full organic coco with in a month or so. That my friend is that balance of merging passion with science.


Same here.

What I'm not getting is how you're suddenly a coco expert when you've been running it for, what... less than 6mos? Yet here you are, so very insistent that you are absolutely, unequivocally right in everything you say.

Don't you worry, TG, you won't be having to sample my bud, I would never wish such a terrible thing on someone.

Quit being so emotional bout this shit- when did i say yours was terrible bud? said nothing of the sort- thats you being butthurt and blowing outta proportion...some folks tend to do that when feelings get hurt. I said if you dont follow processes, ya dont follow processes- and no matter how pleased YOU are...doesnt mean its done to the utmost. If you gave me a dank bud and said you didn't ph during flush- i would say cool, i wonder what it would be like had you finished it strong.

And yes in that 6-8 mos i can probably grow coco circles around most. Not because Im some coco expert at all (im still learning and improving daily), but because i apply the logic of growing in every other medium i have and fix problems solely coco growers think are issues/the norm. If I'm not mistaken, werent you the one not wanting to mix nute brands even if products were better?

It has nothing to do with coco alone, it has to do with knowledge of growing cannabis. I have experience across the spectrum- coco is just plain idiot proof and easy, and if you apply some basics- you get results above and beyond what you could expect. My trial and error is also extreme...like i said i kill plenty of plants trying shit, just so my healthy plants are THAT much better.

Keep being butthurt.
 
E

evlme2

51
8
OK then, how about a few pics of an un ph'd flush in progress to lighten the mood:icon_spin:
These are from previous grows. The two outside are (Mr.Nice)Mango X Widow and the other is my pineapple pheno C99BX from Mosca seeds. (It is the very photo Mosca uses in his ad for the BX) Just a few examples of what my flushes look like. Of coarse smell/taste cannot be discerned by photo's but hey...:RastaBong:
PhpqnwXoiPM


PhpvVfjsMPM


PhpryhXIMPM
 
sky high

sky high

4,796
313
that thar is a princess with both her slippers on.... holy fuck.

I'm older and more hard-headed than most of yaz....so I gotta say I enjoy seeing folks like grit and waywardson soakin shit up like a sponge and wringing out the gunk for others. We're LUCKY they share their trials and tribs..... and from seeing the results.. >I< sure don't feel like I'm in a position to criticize their approaches. Ddddammn.

If I could dial my grow in half as good as either of em I'd be feeling better right now...LOL. Those bushes wayward does have been in a couple of my dreams lately...

and now i think cindy is gonna be in there too.... LOL

s h
 
Blaze

Blaze

2,006
263
Blaze- I think this is very well and eloquently put- no offense taken in the least, but you are going off teh whole assumption that using science and consistency negates the other things that you mentioned- and it doesn't. Good growers can achieve all of those- with consistency.

I'm not assuming that at all, using science does not negate what I mentioned, I guess I wasn't totally clear on that. I think we're pretty much on the same page on this one TG - good growers are the ones that combine the understanding of science with creativity and a bit of an artistic touch. My point is that there's more to growing than just pure numbers and science.
 
true grit

true grit

6,265
313
I'm not assuming that at all, using science does not negate what I mentioned, I guess I wasn't totally clear on that. I think we're pretty much on the same page on this one TG - good growers are the ones that combine the understanding of science with creativity and a bit of an artistic touch. My point is that there's more to growing than just pure numbers and science.

Most def bro! Im with ya and think we are most def on the same page here bro.

Evl- you aint lying that cindy looks great. talk about a stacker!
 
W

waywardson

91
0
Blaze...absolutely no offense taken bro. I appreciate your point of view and how well it was articulated. In the grand scheme of things it is just opinions and everyone is allowed their own.

You certainly have a point. I am very happy that breeders bring artistry to their craft. Hell I am glad other growers bring artistry cause you never know when one of those one offs moves the entire thing forward.

And today, I agree with you on craft beers. But today I don't like actually getting drunk, I just enjoy unique beer flavors with dinner or what not. But back in the day I enjoyed getting drunk and you just can't beat $10 a 12 pack Pabst Blue Ribbon. My guess is that the big boys could create craft beers but have made the decision that the tasteless swill they produce is more profitable overall. On the other hand when I go to my favorite micro brewery I want the Rasberry Wheat to taste the same every time...not a big fan of the pinch of this pinch of that method...cause i ordered it because of the taste from last time. But that is just me again.

Also I am not putting down anyone else weed. No question there are people here who produce tastier weed than me (without even thinking of science when they do it)...but I am improving constantly and hopefully doing it in a repeatable way.

edit...btw you are totally correct that subjective things cannot be measured objectively...like taste. However, what people do is use things like focus groups to get a feel for what the majority of their customers want and then apply the science to move towards that. I count on feedback from MMCs for info like that and try to use what they tell me to dial in my weed for the people who are using it. I learned a long time ago that what I like in weed (pure sativas that alter my perception of the time space continuum) are not what most people want.

So even though I took the exact opposite view from you I think we probably still have quite a bit in common.

edit dos...Evl, that looks to be a perfectly flushed plant. I like that it is faded but you do not see a bunch of dead leaves everywhere. That is what I shoot for. Plus it is just a great looking plant. Well done in my opinion.
 
D

DixinCider

371
43
glad i found this thread, totally agree with tg, and blaze. i will be phing my flush water for the full two weeks, and not just one of the two. thanks tg big up!
 
true grit

true grit

6,265
313
No doubt, and Ive since dropped calpex way earlier as well. After a few flushes and no difference, i started trying the less cal approach after about wk 6-7 and things are flushing and finishing same/spot on still.
 
oscar169

oscar169

Farming 🌱
Supporter
2,729
263
I'm bring this back from the Dead...:ninja:

Anyways what is everyone doing to flush their plants in coco ? I read this thread and seen a lot of talk about PH Ro water, How in the hell does one Ph Pure RO water that has no minerals in it to hold PH, I have always flushed with straight pure RO water, My thoughts have been the ro will change to what the grow median PH is already at, If the coco is all ready been getting feed at 5.9 then when you put the Pure RO water in it will not change anything because there is no mineral in that water its just pure H20 ?
 
S

SHIRDABZALOT

255
93
I've noticed the same thing with ro water. There is hardly any electrical conductivity so it's hard to ph correctly. That's probably why I hear people flushing with 100-200 ppms of base nutes. Holds a solid ph. Just a thought.
 
P

Phenom

6
3
Lead, in my world, you just can't go wrong with molasses. Even if I'm not feeding it to my girls it's a quick and tasty treat for ME.

You may think so, but how much smoke have you had from a girl who either hasn't been properly flushed, or who's had a late flower push of nutes? I've made both those mistakes and lemme tell ya, the smoke is AWFUL.

The entire point of working toward that late flower fade is to help ensure that the girls have used up what's there. What happens when they use up their reserves (that are held in the large fans)? They yellow and, if you leave them, they die. That's the natural order of things and I absolutely do not care for the smoke when I was keeping them greener late into flower. Not to mention, somehow I'm managing to bring my yields up. I think it's a balance, honestly.

But mostly for me the goal is flavor along with potency, and as far as flavor goes, each girl's characteristics shine through all on their own the way I'm doing it. And I like that (even if I don't happen to like that particular girl, and that does happen to me a lot), in fact, I have to say I'm quite proud of it when I achieve that. I'm crafting a product here.

Curious, but what's the point of pHing the RO water for that final flush?
See there is a LOT of different oppinions here.
Been growing a few years, hit or miss on the finish but ive been running different nutes, settled on Jacks321ish Mammoth P, RAW Full up and Honey.
I use honey in every watering as well a little mammoth and RAW.
Best grow so far by a mile by looking at the girls but my last run was horribly harsh. I ran SOG last time 1gallons so was easy to flush medium. I did it too soon, lost yeild and had to chop slightly early.:( first time with that system and the end product was horrible... well to me. So im back in 3gal coco pots with tomato cages... Just seems to be where I shine.
I need help with this Seamaiden. I know its likely old style but I Want to harvest in 10 days. I properly leech medium throughout run.to not accumulate salt. Normally I hit heavy with clearing solution then ph water the last 2 weeks.
I decided not to PH this time thinking as above was stated, maybe I should try locking them out?
What a mess...your idea sounds so much better..
How about the mammoth P and Humic Acids? Should I keep those in the last 10days with honey ? (I prefer Honey to molasses, its a good treat for ME ;)
 
P

Phenom

6
3
Wow, I could not disagree more on that point waywardson. I do agree with you that understanding the science behind what we are doing, and being objective and logical is extremely important. I try to be as scientific as possible with my growing so I understand the "why" and "how" behind everything that I am doing. I take a lot of notes, gather a lot of data, conduct many experiments, and spend a lot of time reading agriculture text book and studies to further my goals and understanding in regards to growing. Being able to verify and repeat your results is a key element in being a good grower no doubt, but if you focus ONLY on the science you are seriously missing the bigger picture. Creativity, ingenuity, being able to think outside the box and beyond the pure science are all very important. In my opinion the best growers and breeders are ALWAYS the ones who have an artistic touch because they tend to be more open minded and creative and more capable of lateral thinking. Far to often scientists become extremely narrow minded and are essentially "blinded by science."

Logic and science can help you grow bigger and better plants more efficiently and to maximize those aspect of your grow, but the more subjective and artistic elements of flavor, aroma, and appearance are equally important. Who cares if you are growing plants to their "upmost potential" from a scientific point of view if the bud doesn't smoke good? If you bud smokes like shit, or you are not satisfying your patients or customers then what's the point? You could be hitting 3 gpw and have some crazy super-efficient room built, but if the bud tastes and looks generic, you are not going to impress anyone, especially someone like me that places a high values on uniqueness and originality. The bottom line is the consumer doesn't give a shit about how scientific your grow is or how logical you are, they care about the quality and how good it looks and how good it smokes.

How do you go about quantifying something as subjective as flavor? Can you come up with a scientific formula for "good taste and smell"? How about statistics on what "looks good"? Can you chart originality on a graph? Of course you can't - because science no longer applies to these variables. Even potency is very subjective as everyone has a unique brain chemistry and reacts differently to different strains. Potency tests help get you a general idea, but you still only see a piece of the bigger pictures, since there are so many more variables and chemicals in play other than just straight THC content.

Just look at the beer industry for an example of this. Companies like Coors and Anheuser-Busch may have millions of dollars of research behind them, and employ very advanced, scientific methods to brew their beer, but their quality is shit. Everything the make is pure crap, completely lacking in flavor, originality and soul; about the only thing their beer is good for is target practice. Smaller breweries like Anderson Valley and North Coast do not have an army of scientists at their disposal like Coors and Anheuser-Busch do, but they have creativity, ingenuity and an artistic touch. Because of this the quality of their product is far superior to ANYTHING that Coors or Anheuser-Busch has every produced or will ever produce. The same is true in the cannabis industry.

In my experience (and this comment is not aimed at you waywardson or you True Grit so please do not take offense) the growers who focus JUST on things like the science, and yield, and efficiency grow very poor quality buds most of the time. People like that often simply lack the connoisseur touch and the ability to see beyond pure numbers and statistics. If you do not care about what the consumer or medical patients you grow for thinks or wants and do not care about how your buds smokes then you are a total failure as a grower. Even the great breeders like DJ Short and Luther Burbank speak of their breeding as an art and a craft rather than as a science. If all everyone did, especially when growing, was go by just the established science, can you imagine how boring everything would be? There would be little innovation, little change, no uniqueness, and no originality. All we would have would be just plain, boring, unoriginal and soul-less run of the mill crap from now until eternity.

Anyway just my two cents. I'll stop side tracking this thread now.
OMG! Am I late to the game. Bump just to have these last two posts read!!
Bravo both!! I am a man of science...my career is a software developer, I have to reproduce the same results at work....everytime in enterprise, but you have a point!!
You cannot quantify some things. Especially in cannabis (growing )
Its the most important point.
I also tattoo people and I grow artistically.
 
TheGreenGroomer

TheGreenGroomer

89
18
what numbers do we want to be bringing our ppms/ec down to for harvest? no more than 300ppm?
 
Top Bottom