The Crystal Palace is back, now with a Spiderfarmer SE5000.

  • Thread starter Dirtbag
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Dirtbag

Dirtbag

Supporter
9,158
313
Further to that, I think that's probably why plants grown in a symbiotic media like living soil don't need flushing as often as a soiless or hydroponic grown plants.
Living soil communicates with the plants through exudates and soil microorganisms to only really provide what the plant needs. Whereas chelated nutrients in a hydroponic system is much more like being hooked up to a feeding tube. Whatever I put in there is what the plant is gonna take up. Whether that's too little or too much. But it's almost always a little too much, especially when you're pushing plants hard for production.
 
PipeCarver

PipeCarver

Supporter
5,643
313
Further to that, I think that's probably why plants grown in a symbiotic media like living soil don't need flushing as often as a soiless or hydroponic grown plants.
Living soil communicates with the plants through exudates and soil microorganisms to only really provide what the plant needs. Whereas chelated nutrients in a hydroponic system is much more like being hooked up to a feeding tube. Whatever I put in there is what the plant is gonna take up. Whether that's too little or too much. But it's almost always a little too much, especially when you're pushing plants hard for production.
I got the light working again...I'd attached the driver and dimmer to the wall on a mounting board.....I loosened the screws to get at the back reset button and the light went out....looks like I'd tightened it too tight and depressed the reset button disengaging the dimmer and switch......a bit sensitive I mean it wasn't that tight but its now working as it should...panic over light is great. Operator..... well...typical issues...try and do a good job and ooops too fking good ...let er hang 😆😆
 
Casimpi

Casimpi

94
33
Further to that, I think that's probably why plants grown in a symbiotic media like living soil don't need flushing as often as a soiless or hydroponic grown plants.
Living soil communicates with the plants through exudates and soil microorganisms to only really provide what the plant needs. Whereas chelated nutrients in a hydroponic system is much more like being hooked up to a feeding tube. Whatever I put in there is what the plant is gonna take up. Whether that's too little or too much. But it's almost always a little too much, especially when you're pushing plants hard for production.


Your two part post explaining "flushing" makes more sense than any other explanation I have ever heard.

This is why there is so much debate on flushing vs non flushing. They are both the answer it just depends on the situation as to which answer makes more sense.

Once again I am excited each time I check in on this thread not just for progress picks, but because 90% of the time I learn something pretty cool.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and keep up the great work!
 
Dirtbag

Dirtbag

Supporter
9,158
313
Your two part post explaining "flushing" makes more sense than any other explanation I have ever heard.

This is why there is so much debate on flushing vs non flushing. They are both the answer it just depends on the situation as to which answer makes more sense.

Once again I am excited each time I check in on this thread not just for progress picks, but because 90% of the time I learn something pretty cool.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and keep up the great work!
Cheers Casimpi, to be honest I learn something cool here all the time myself. Even this latest theory on flushing just formed the other day after watching a video someone here shared featuring Dr Bruce where he stated that there was no evidence that flushing is beneficial. BUT.. he then elaborated to mention that plants CAN store unassimilated nutrients in a similar way to how humans store excess food in the form of fat cells. With plants those unused nutrients get stored in vaccules, which are essentially microscopic sacs that act as a depository for unassimilated nutrients. Then he admitted that if you've been pushing your plants hard with nutrients, specifically phosphorus which is taken up by cannabis in huge amounts and stored in these vaccuoles, it could be beneficial to use only water at the end to allow the plant to assimilate or use up the stored nutrients.
And it's fairly well known amongst LP's and commercial growers now that Phosphorus and Chlorides are the two main nutrients that if left in the plant in excessive amounts, leads to a bad burn quality.
After watching the Dr Bruce video, a light bulb came on for sure.
 
Johnlandy420

Johnlandy420

Supporter
1,083
263
Cheers Casimpi, to be honest I learn something cool here all the time myself. Even this latest theory on flushing just formed the other day after watching a video someone here shared featuring Dr Bruce where he stated that there was no evidence that flushing is beneficial. BUT.. he then elaborated to mention that plants CAN store unassimilated nutrients in a similar way to how humans store excess food in the form of fat cells. With plants those unused nutrients get stored in vaccules, which are essentially microscopic sacs that act as a depository for unassimilated nutrients. Then he admitted that if you've been pushing your plants hard with nutrients, specifically phosphorus which is taken up by cannabis in huge amounts and stored in these vaccuoles, it could be beneficial to use only water at the end to allow the plant to assimilate or use up the stored nutrients.
And it's fairly well known amongst LP's and commercial growers now that Phosphorus and Chlorides are the two main nutrients that if left in the plant in excessive amounts, leads to a bad burn quality.
After watching the Dr Bruce video, a light bulb came on for sure.
Good stuff dB! I worry that a lot of people will pick through this post and decide end feed flushing is beneficial. The key here is iff you pushed your plants hard in the grow..
 
Dirtbag

Dirtbag

Supporter
9,158
313
Which raises more questions. What's better, to slightly underfeed the whole cycle? or to push them hard and then flush at the end? What is the difference in results?

The way I see it flushing is just insurance if you're not sure. And if you've been feeding chelated nutrients in a soiless or hydro setup with high P values, it's likely beneficial. Imho.
If you're using a soil with a low input of nutrients that have a low P value.. may not be as necessary.

I guess my question is what is gained by pushing them hard vs careful tailored low dose feedings? If this grow is any indicator over previous grows, it looks like I get bigger stickier buds by pushing the P levels up in flower and feeding on the high side. But who knows. Just meaningless observational theories at this point but I like how it makes me think.
 
Mr.GreenthumbOG

Mr.GreenthumbOG

Grow for life🌱
Supporter
2,301
263
Which raises more questions. What's better, to slightly underfeed the whole cycle? or to push them hard and then flush at the end? What is the difference in results?

The way I see it flushing is just insurance if you're not sure. And if you've been feeding chelated nutrients in a soiless or hydro setup with high P values, it's likely beneficial. Imho.
If you're using a soil with a low input of nutrients that have a low P value.. may not be as necessary.

I guess my question is what is gained by pushing them hard vs careful tailored low dose feedings? If this grow is any indicator over previous grows, it looks like I get bigger stickier buds by pushing the P levels up in flower and feeding on the high side. But who knows. Just meaningless observational theories at this point but I like how it makes me think.
Real thought and experience goes into your growing mentality, and that’s why your results are so good. 👌
 
PipeCarver

PipeCarver

Supporter
5,643
313
Which raises more questions. What's better, to slightly underfeed the whole cycle? or to push them hard and then flush at the end? What is the difference in results?

The way I see it flushing is just insurance if you're not sure. And if you've been feeding chelated nutrients in a soiless or hydro setup with high P values, it's likely beneficial. Imho.
If you're using a soil with a low input of nutrients that have a low P value.. may not be as necessary.

I guess my question is what is gained by pushing them hard vs careful tailored low dose feedings? If this grow is any indicator over previous grows, it looks like I get bigger stickier buds by pushing the P levels up in flower and feeding on the high side. But who knows. Just meaningless observational theories at this point but I like how it makes me think.
I think it's the word that confuses people. "Flushing" cleaning everything out and if you don't you get shit tasting / burning weed...I don't see flushing as in pouring 3-4 gallons of water through a 3 gallon container..or 10 gallons through a 5 gal...some do that to flush I've read...All flushing to me is back to back watering ...in a feed water feed water cycle...with good runoff...I now start that at week 8 in flower...I don't fkin know...I smoke my stuff is that flushing?
 
Mr.GreenthumbOG

Mr.GreenthumbOG

Grow for life🌱
Supporter
2,301
263
I will add, since you raised the question.
what I think many of us try to do is provide optimum nutrients based on what it needs to thrive at certain phases of growth.
More often than not tho we Feed to rich, and it leads to excess buildup in non organic growing medium, as well as the plant itself, that’s why plain water feedings with normal runoff is the way to go to finish up👌
 
Dirtbag

Dirtbag

Supporter
9,158
313
@Dirtbag do you notice any difference in growth under the HIDs vs LEDs?
I do but I'm reluctant to give my opinion just yet. It has been a non stop leap frog in progression the whole grow, one week the HPS plants look better an the next week the LED plants look better.

I will say, I like what I'm seeing on both sides. And the plants in row 3 sharing light with HPS on one side and LED on the other are without a doubt the nicest overall. The plants between the SE5000 and the HPS have the biggest tops by a long shot.
 
Dirtbag

Dirtbag

Supporter
9,158
313
Just comparing photos of my last run to this one it's clear that something is different this cycle. Last cycle I kept P low, had smaller buds and dark green leaves nearly right to the end, and in the end the leaves went dark purple instead of fading properly.

these pics are all of the same strain at the same stage in 2 different cycles. This was last cycle using low P.
Screenshot 20220117 123619 Gallery


This run dropping N way back and jacking up the P, the buds are much more filled out and wider, and the leaves aren't so dark green. This is of course proof of nothing as other variables changed too. But it's certainly something I'm seeing visually in the room this grow compared to last and it certainly makes me wonder.

20220113 192607
20220113 192619
 
PK1

PK1

Supporter
3,459
263
I think it's the word that confuses people. "Flushing" cleaning everything out and if you don't you get shit tasting / burning weed...I don't see flushing as in pouring 3-4 gallons of water through a 3 gallon container..or 10 gallons through a 5 gal...some do that to flush I've read...All flushing to me is back to back watering ...in a feed water feed water cycle...with good runoff...I now start that at week 8 in flower...I don't fkin know...I smoke my stuff is that flushing?
im with you as far as people getting the word mixed up. The word "Flushing" to me is like flushing the toilet. Massive amount of water to clean the salts down like @Mr.GreenthumbOG said.
This is only when you have excessive amount of build ups and for the plants sake its better to reduce the salts vs just watering.
However, In @Dirtbag scenario, the word "flushing" the plant, is meant to reduce the nutrients uptake by the plant. imo, this is not flushing, although the word is used as one.

Just comparing photos of my last run to this one it's clear that something is different this cycle. Last cycle I kept P low, had smaller buds and dark green leaves nearly right to the end, and in the end the leaves went dark purple instead of fading properly.

these pics are all of the same strain at the same stage in 2 different cycles. This was last cycle using low P. View attachment 1207602

This run dropping N way back and jacking up the P, the buds are much more filled out and wider, and the leaves aren't so dark green. This is of course proof of nothing as other variables changed too. But it's certainly something I'm seeing visually in the room this grow compared to last and it certainly makes me wonder.

View attachment 1207601View attachment 1207600
would you say the extra P is good for any strain or is it just particularly to your grow?
 
Dirtbag

Dirtbag

Supporter
9,158
313
im with you as far as people getting the word mixed up. The word "Flushing" to me is like flushing the toilet. Massive amount of water to clean the salts down like @Mr.GreenthumbOG said.
This is only when you have excessive amount of build ups and for the plants sake its better to reduce the salts vs just watering.
However, In @Dirtbag scenario, the word "flushing" the plant, is meant to reduce the nutrients uptake by the plant. imo, this is not flushing, although the word is used as one.


would you say the extra P is good for any strain or is it just particularly to your grow?

It's just a guess at this point, but I would wager that it's highly strain specific as to how much P they can uptake, or how well they can develop with lower P to put it another way.

When I ran my low P experiment grows, about 4 in total, my Platinum cookies cut produced well no mater what I fed it. But my bubba Kush plants were absolutely miserable on the low P regimen.

This was Bubba kush being fed Floranova Bloom one part, 4-8-7. Big chunky buds and a proper fade.
20200407 084821


This was the same cut being fed Botanicare pure blend pro grow, 3-2-4. Small buds overall and a lot of purpling.
20190322 155227


And I guess what's weird is it goes against my earlier theory about the flush pertaining to low P.
The plants fed Nova bloom got a 2 week flush of plain water at the end and it burned beautifully and tasted great.
The plant fed Low P was just tapered down to around 100ppm at the end with no flush, and burned like a wet sponge. As in, hardly at all. Black ash, and very disappointing.

Starting to see a pattern develop after these last few years of experimenting. For sure.
 
Dirtbag

Dirtbag

Supporter
9,158
313
These pics were from the same crops. You can clearly see how much more purple the low P plants got, in addition to the overall lack of development in comparison.

Nova Bloom 4-8-7
20181007 192010


PBP 3-2-4
20200201 154829


And yes, that's the exact same cut of Pre-98 Bubba Kush about 3 grows apart. Both grown in the same room under the same conditions. Big difference in results just changing up the feeding ratio. But I was blaming it on other things at the time I think.

Now, when I consider the fact that purpling is a known indicator of P deficiency.. its not hard to put this puzzle together
 
Dirtbag

Dirtbag

Supporter
9,158
313
im a sucker for purple lol,. Was it the 3rd week you started to feed more P?
This round I started introducing more P about a week before flip. I started by hitting them with about 0.2ec of mag-pro on top of the foliage pro in the 3rd week of veg. In the first week of bloom I was doing about 70% foliage pro, 20% bloom and 10% mag pro. By the end of stretch it was up to 70%bloom, 20% foliage pro and 10% mag pro (percentage in terms of total ppm, not refering to the volume of nutrient added). Weeks 6 and 7 has just been 50/50 bloom and mag pro, I cut out foliage pro by the end of week 5. Wasn't ever a drastic jump from one ratio to another, it was gradually transitioned throughout the grow.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom