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.
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.
Personally my goal is to totally eliminate artistry from the craft
Same here.Im not in paradigm, im just biting my tongue from other things id like to say.
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.
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.
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.
See there is a LOT of different oppinions here.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?
OMG! Am I late to the game. Bump just to have these last two posts read!!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.
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?