He invented the hempy bucket. He grows baseball bats... intelligent old gruff reticent hippie.. I won't put words into his mouth.. worth looking up if wanting to learn or expand knowledge/growing techniques..
Final Flush: Myth Or Fact?
- Thread starter Drivejunky95
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #142
Drivejunky95
Well-Known Member
The study is at the bottom of page.
Mycorrhizae dont cultivate well with synthetic nutes, which is unfortunate because they're the only fungi I'm aware of that creates a symbiotic bond with plant roots to promote nutrient and water uptake, when the plant calls for it.
Bacterias can withstand the high NPK concentrations, but only benefit of that afaik is it means less nutes are required. And downside is less control and knowledge over actual ppm uptake.
Really comes down to environment.
I found a study that claimed keeping the shoots colder than the roots grows a larger plant.
His test group isnt large enough imo, although the claims in size and dry weight difference are so drastic that it suggests there really is an impact on growth.
Goodbye from Maximum Yield
In print and online, Maximum Yield is your source for cannabis and cultivation knowledge, with informative grow articles and tips to enhance your life with mmj.
www.maximumyield.com
Mycorrhizae dont cultivate well with synthetic nutes, which is unfortunate because they're the only fungi I'm aware of that creates a symbiotic bond with plant roots to promote nutrient and water uptake, when the plant calls for it.
Bacterias can withstand the high NPK concentrations, but only benefit of that afaik is it means less nutes are required. And downside is less control and knowledge over actual ppm uptake.
Really comes down to environment.
I found a study that claimed keeping the shoots colder than the roots grows a larger plant.
His test group isnt large enough imo, although the claims in size and dry weight difference are so drastic that it suggests there really is an impact on growth.
TheFertilizer
Well-Known Member
Photosynthesis usually becomes bottle-necked by CO2 fixation rates, which is why CO2 supplementation helps to boost it a little bit. Even then however, at a certain point, there becomes a point wherein photosynthesis isn't driving enough growth to need to uptake that many nutrients, and more addition of them to the soil will just be increasing the salt content of the solution at the root zone.
Also, people don't really think about "salts" in the right way. It's not like table salts or sodium, it just means that the water is impure with solids. The biggest way salts interfere with water uptake is because roots work through osmosis and absorbing through a membrane. When you have two bodies of water separated by a membrane, the direction of flow is determined by which has a higher concentration of salts in it. So if the water in your soil is saltier than that inside of the plant, it will have trouble taking up water through its roots.
Jorge Cervantes advocates that method be referred to as "leeching" rather than flushing. It does help minimize confusion. But even that method is a bit scientifically unfounded, as there's a lot of chemical science that shows water shouldn't be able to remove a lot of those nutrients from soil. @bobrown14 and @conradino23 know more of the specifics than I.
There's actually a few other bacteria that do that. There's one that helps fix nitrogen, but I forget the name of it. Xtreme Gardening sells it as "Azos".
In most living soil enthusiast circles I've followed, they usually stress the importance of diversity. I wonder if there is evidence of just how much life it wipes out and not just the study done on mycorrhizae. I expect this might be where the argument comes from though, because it seems reasonable to conclude that if they would kill mycorrhizae, they could kill more than just that. It certainly doesn't seem to be the high-orbit-nuclear-death that it's purported as in some circles though.
- Thread starter
- #144
Drivejunky95
Well-Known Member
The benefits of fungi may not outweigh the benefits of environmental factors.
That is to say, if a plant requires higher ppm concentrations of synthetic force feeding nutes to compensate for increased growth rates, it may indeed forfeit the benefits of using fungi, simply by killing them off.
High ppm concentrations kills, but it may not completely wipe them out, so routinely re-cultivating their numbers during a grow in an environment that promotes rapid growth, the two together hold potential for even more.
It might not be removing anything, could be diluting, whatever, it's not important unless to feel educated or superior, it's the act of what it achieves, is the relevance to home hobby growers..
Conradino23
Well-Known Member
Flushing is cannagrowers’ invention. In soil science there’s leaching, which is the process of losing cations and anions through heavy weather or water erosion.
I posted a study on that here:
Nutrient Leaching: A Study
Few words about how nutrients are leached, which ones are leached and under what conditions. The source is Chapter 7 of "Trees, Crops, and Soil Fertility: Concepts and Research Methods" (2003). It's good addition to flushing discussion, where folklore still rules. :smokin2:
www.420magazine.com
TheFertilizer
Well-Known Member
That's pretty much what's in question.
You saying I'm not seeing a difference when doing abc but merely if had continued same samecand waited I'd see same results? 
TheFertilizer
Well-Known Member
I may have misunderstood what you're trying to say...You saying I'm not seeing a difference when doing abc but merely if had continued same samecand waited I'd see same results?
You ever hear "your mileage my vary"? Not everyone has had great results flushing to fix their problems. Once I read the study conrad posted up there I stopped wasting my time trying to fix my problem with flushing, and just started watering with more run-off and transplanting more and I never had to flush a pot again. It's not about feeling superior, educating myself allowed me to not waste my time and energy carrying pots around to the shower. In the long run it benefited my plants too, because my soil doesn't get as compacted from constantly flushing with gallons of water now either.
But do what you feel is right man. I'm not trying to feel superior to anyone. I suggested you call it "leeching" because it's a way to avoid the confusion between flushing to remove soil from nutrients, and plain-watering at the end of the cycle, which you yourself pointed out. I just thought the scientific aspect of "leeching" not being well supported was relevant to this thread since it's all about the scientific aspect of flushing not being supported either. If you go back and read it you'll see I'm actually a bit more on your side about empirical evidence and anecdotes not being meaningless.
I was going to ask if your being facetious? Cause I know you know how grow plants.. Unless, which will likely be case, my interpretation and understanding of your meaning is off
A lot of this isn't even a concern cause don't really run into lockouts and know how to finish a plant, what's happening and resin for doing something can be the same with different explanations due to misinterpreted observations but achieving same results..
A lot of this isn't even a concern cause don't really run into lockouts and know how to finish a plant, what's happening and resin for doing something can be the same with different explanations due to misinterpreted observations but achieving same results..
If your plant is still feeding high ppm and eating it up, your plants not ready to finish..
