420 Magazine Background

Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

ScienceGrow

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

The way I understand it N , P and K can move in the Plant and are *not* locked in position like *some* if not *most* of the micronutirents are.
In leaves they are mobile. In flowers, no. Source vs. Sink.

Yes weasel, I actually have. But, I'm too ethical to be successful. I couldn't defend a guilty person (unless it's cannabis related...hmm...) or prosecute an innocent person. But I do love debate and discussion a whole lot!

I'm not trying to be confusing. But, bottom line, in science, anecdotal evidence is not valued as evidence. As a precursor to a hypothesis, certainly. But then you have to follow up with the rest of the scientific process.

I'm only presenting evidence here, and while I'd love to sway everyone, I really don't care that others do it. Just don't claim it's a fact without scientific evidence to support it.

Hasn't anyone noticed the ridiculous amount of bad info out there on growing cannabis? This is just another one of those. Like boiling roots, just more immediately plausible.
 

ScienceGrow

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

As your a Newbie you should not pretend to have the answers for those of us with 30 years of practical experience !

It does not do you justice to put the blinders on and tell people with experience how it is and how it isn't.
That's called an Appeal to Authority. It's a logical fallacy and not considered a valid argument.

Explain to me the process that leeches nutrients from fruit or flowers, and if it's grounded in science, I'll concede and call you Mr. AWESOME anytime we interact and call myself Mr. Dumbass.

As far as saying "I was told", that's your end, bud. You were told to do it, and without evidence of its efficacy aside from your experience, which is subjective and biased, you did it.

I read about how plants uptake, assimilate, and translocate nutrients. I read about how osmotic pressure and concentration gradients are responsible for nutrient uptake.

But you want observations, not science. Okay.

I see that leaves burn with excess nutrients, while flowers dont. Burn is caused by salts pushing water out of cells. I've seen leaves crumble to dust from this. I've never seen this happen to a flower. Nutrient excess in flowers is neither common, nor reversible.
 

Robert Celt

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

Morning guys :) good debate :)

I will weigh in, but this is only for organic soil grows as hydro and soil are two very different grow methods and different in how a plant uptakes nutrients. Unlike hydro, organic soil grows do not rely on a nutrient gradient for uptake.

Let me explain how they a different first and I will use Epsom salt (MgSO[SUB]4[/SUB]) as an example. We have 1 Mg[SUP]2+[/SUP] ion and 1 SO[SUB]4[/SUB][SUP]2-[/SUP] ion. When the Epsom salt is mixed with water, the salt molecule becomes dissociated into the above 2 ions that float freely in the water and are readily available for uptake by the plant. This next is conjecture on my part, but I believe this is why hydro plants grow quicker than soil plants because they have to expend less energy to uptake nutrients.

A 'true' organic soil grow is very different. When I say "true", I am referring to an organic soil as opposed to bottled organic nutrients. In an organic soil grow, nutrients are not in a salt form, but rather, we rely on micro organisms on the soil to break down organic matter into usable forms for our plants. Once broken down, we then have to look at the CEC (cation exchange capacity) of the soil as well as the mechanism involved in the uptake of nutrients by the plants.

Again I will use Epsom salt to explain this. Epsom salt doesn't require micros to be broken down, water does it, but the process of CEC and uptake work the same. For simplicity, think of CEC as a grid of square lockers. When the Mg ion is freed from the SO[SUB]4[/SUB] ion, it gets stored in a free locker. This is the first part of the process.

The second part of the process, uptake, requires "root exudes". Root exudes are various organic acids, sugars and other things that the roots release (exude) into the soil. For nutrient uptake, we want to focus on the acids, which you can think of as "keys" to the lockers. For the plant to access the Mg it needs, it must exude an acid to free up the Mg (ie unlock the locker).

This is why pH is of little importance to organic soil growers, unless you do something to throw things out of whack, the plant will regulate the pH according to its nutrient requirements. You can check pH all you like but it will vary, within a range, every time you check and will not stay stable at say 6.5.

Because of these processes, and because nutrients are not in a salt form floating freely in the soil, flushing organic soil does nothing for the plant or the soil. It is also why you won't find nutrient burn or toxicity in a properly prepared organic soil.

Now let me explain why I chose Epsom salt, in particular Mg, for this explanation. Mg is the central atom of every form of chlorophyll meaning plants require a lot of it. Because of this, Mg is the most common deficiency likely to be experienced by organic soil growers and is often mistaken for other deficiencies.
 

ShiggityFlip

Member of the Month: Jan 2016, Aug 2017 - Nug of the Month: June 2017 - Photo of the Month: Sept 2016
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

I perform a flush in the last two weeks but my reasoning is different. My 2nd to last week and half the remaining week is at 1/4 nutrients. Lots of people flush with no nutrients but Using a low Pom helps to release the excess salts from the soil.

The low ppm does this by 1. Having a lower amount of salt lets diffusion take its course and dissolve some of the salt in the soil. 2. Having some ions for the locked up nutrients to react with and hopefully become available. The greatest benefit for me is the same we see at any time of flower when we flush. A sudden growth spurt happens. I use low ppm nutes any time I flush during flower. Never just pure water. Now in the last watering maybe I will use plain water but it really is just an economy thing there. I figure the plant has anything already there it is going to use and adding more will just waste nutrients. The previous low ppm flush has removed most of the nutrients from the soil so she will coast the last few days.

I then hang her after harvest with fans cut off in the room with the lights on for a few days still on flowering cycle. The lights help the plant use whatever nutrients are still in the flowers and the plant keeps transpiring. This helps the stems start to become dry. I will rotate the hanging buds as they are on coat hangers so that they get light on both sides. Then move to final trim and paper bag for a few days until they are ready for jar curing.
 

LEDBud

Well-Known Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

The process is you STOP DUMPING fertilizers in before harvest so the plant uses its AVAILABLE nutrients for growth.


Not much to it , I think you are nit picking yourself into a corner.


That's called an Appeal to Authority. It's a logical fallacy and not considered a valid argument.

Explain to me the process that leeches nutrients from fruit or flowers, and if it's grounded in science, I'll concede and call you Mr. AWESOME anytime we interact and call myself Mr. Dumbass.


A person *can* flush if he thinks the soil needs it or he can *reduce* the amount of nutrients if he thinks the plant needs it.
 

ScienceGrow

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

The process is you STOP DUMPING fertilizers in before harvest so the plant uses its AVAILABLE nutrients for growth.


Not much to it , I think you are nit picking yourself into a corner.
Ceasing fertilizer treatment isn't flushing. Flushing is dumping tons of water through to clean out the medium, and supposedly the plant.

The medium, yes, the plant, no.

I fully agree with ceasing feeding the plants, as I said, because they feed less and you're killing it soon anyway, so it's just a waste of money. But that's not flushin, and flushing was the topic.
 

ScienceGrow

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

Morning guys :) good debate :)

I will weigh in, but this is only for organic soil grows as hydro and soil are two very different grow methods and different in how a plant uptakes nutrients. Unlike hydro, organic soil grows do not rely on a nutrient gradient for uptake.

Let me explain how they a different first and I will use Epsom salt (MgSO[SUB]4[/SUB]) as an example. We have 1 Mg[SUP]2+[/SUP] ion and 1 SO[SUB]4[/SUB][SUP]2-[/SUP] ion. When the Epsom salt is mixed with water, the salt molecule becomes dissociated into the above 2 ions that float freely in the water and are readily available for uptake by the plant. This next is conjecture on my part, but I believe this is why hydro plants grow quicker than soil plants because they have to expend less energy to uptake nutrients.

A 'true' organic soil grow is very different. When I say "true", I am referring to an organic soil as opposed to bottled organic nutrients. In an organic soil grow, nutrients are not in a salt form, but rather, we rely on micro organisms on the soil to break down organic matter into usable forms for our plants. Once broken down, we then have to look at the CEC (cation exchange capacity) of the soil as well as the mechanism involved in the uptake of nutrients by the plants.

Again I will use Epsom salt to explain this. Epsom salt doesn't require micros to be broken down, water does it, but the process of CEC and uptake work the same. For simplicity, think of CEC as a grid of square lockers. When the Mg ion is freed from the SO[SUB]4[/SUB] ion, it gets stored in a free locker. This is the first part of the process.

The second part of the process, uptake, requires "root exudes". Root exudes are various organic acids, sugars and other things that the roots release (exude) into the soil. For nutrient uptake, we want to focus on the acids, which you can think of as "keys" to the lockers. For the plant to access the Mg it needs, it must exude an acid to free up the Mg (ie unlock the locker).

This is why pH is of little importance to organic soil growers, unless you do something to throw things out of whack, the plant will regulate the pH according to its nutrient requirements. You can check pH all you like but it will vary, within a range, every time you check and will not stay stable at say 6.5.

Because of these processes, and because nutrients are not in a salt form floating freely in the soil, flushing organic soil does nothing for the plant or the soil. It is also why you won't find nutrient burn or toxicity in a properly prepared organic soil.

Now let me explain why I chose Epsom salt, in particular Mg, for this explanation. Mg is the central atom of every form of chlorophyll meaning plants require a lot of it. Because of this, Mg is the most common deficiency likely to be experienced by organic soil growers and is often mistaken for other deficiencies.
I agree with some of what you say, and certainly the flushing is pointless part, but your ideas on how organic works vs synthetic is flawed.

Plants take up the same inorganic nutrients regardless of where they are sourced. Nitrogen is either in ammonium or nitrate form, either NH4 or NO3. Always. There's some evidence they can uptake straight amino acids, but mostly in the lab. But that's the only nutrient that is potentially available in its organic form. The rest are inorganic elements, and inside the plant, are identical, again, regardless of whether from synthetic, organic, or an organic supersoil.

It does go in more slowly, and is less likely to burn, but you CAN definitely burn. Dump too much Guano with high N and see what happens. It just happens that nitrogen is a major limiting factor in organics, so usually you don't burn.
 

ScienceGrow

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

Flushing is also accomplished by feeding with low ppm nutrient for reasons I stated above.
I agree fully with your methods, I've just never heard it called flushing. Flushing always seems to be the process of pouring copious amounts of water through the medium. If you usually water to a lot of runoff, this would accomplish the same objecrives, but I'd not call it flushing. This may be nitpicking, but it's not really the issue.

Anywhere you look up flushing, they talk about pushing 2 to 3 times your container size through, maybe with a flushing agent. Giving reduced nutrients is just reducing EC. I get the difference in language, but flushing implies some kind of forced removal via flushing to another location, outside the plant habitat. Like, when I flush a toilet.

But, the issue was whether flushing removed nutrients from already developed flowers. Maybe we should restart, if this wasn't initially understood.

My claim is that flushing, of any kind, regardless of method, will not remove nutrients from flowers. And, thusly, doesn't provide a smoother, tastier hit.

I will allow for reduced nutrient levels throughout the grow offering the same benefits. This makes sense.

Removing nutrients from developed flowers does not.
 

Robert Celt

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

Hey Science :)

The burn you are talking about, by dumping excess nitrogen on your soil, WILL burn the roots but is not taken up by the plant causing nutrient burn. There is a difference. The burn you are referring to is caused by "salts" dehydrating the roots.

You have asked for science, not experience, so though you may think what I posted is flawed, it is based on science :) Research "cation ion exchange" and "plant exudes" to see the science behind what I posted. Some of the research, in plant growth and soils, was started almost a hundred years ago :)
 

ShiggityFlip

Member of the Month: Jan 2016, Aug 2017 - Nug of the Month: June 2017 - Photo of the Month: Sept 2016
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

I agree fully with your methods, I've just never heard it called flushing. Flushing always seems to be the process of pouring copious amounts of water through the medium. If you usually water to a lot of runoff, this would accomplish the same objecrives, but I'd not call it flushing. This may be nitpicking, but it's not really the issue.

The issue was whether flushing removed nutrients from already developed flowers. Maybe we should restart, if this wasn't initially understood.

My claim is that flushing, of any kind, regardless of method, will not remove nutrients from flowers. And, thusly, doesn't provide a smoother, tastier hit.
I guess I think of flushing as reducing the amount of locked up salts and nutrients in the soil by whatever means whether large volume water flush or by feeding reduced nutrients. I like to think of the effect of what is happening and regard the same effect as flushing. I do agree that flushing is not going to reduce what is already in the plant material. That's one of the reasons I do my post fanleaf cutting regimen of hanging the plants in the grow room. You reduce the amount of nutrients that can be cannibalized from the fan leaves. Also as kidgrow420 said, a little extra stress can induce more trichomes. What is more stressful than losing all fans, having your gravity tropism completely messed with while your transpiration mechanism is drying out your stem and photosynthesis is taking the nutrients from your flowers? Haha I bet the plant is pretty pissed at that point.
 

LEDBud

Well-Known Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

But you are wrong , so now what argue about it ?




Flushing is for the soil not the plant , reducing is for the plant



I agree fully with your methods, I've just never heard it called flushing. Flushing always seems to be the process of pouring copious amounts of water through the medium. If you usually water to a lot of runoff, this would accomplish the same objecrives, but I'd not call it flushing. This may be nitpicking, but it's not really the issue.

The issue was whether flushing removed nutrients from already developed flowers. Maybe we should restart, if this wasn't initially understood.

My claim is that flushing, of any kind, regardless of method, will not remove nutrients from flowers. And, thusly, doesn't provide a smoother, tastier hit.
 

ScienceGrow

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

Like I said, I agree with much of what you said. I didn't disagree about exudates. I disagree about nutrient uptake.

I burned the shit out of my plants leaves with liquid organic nutrients. There's some experience for you. I will need to look into it, but plants take up two forms of N, ammonium and nitrate. I'd bet one is more likely to burn roots and the other leaves.

I predict ammonium burns leaves.
 

ScienceGrow

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

But you are wrong , so now what argue about it ?

Your so obviously wrong so far down the wrong hole I don't think anyone can convince you of anything but what you already believe.

I could be wrong..:volcano-smiley: maybe you'll get it , be open to the premise !
Where am I wrong? You speak, but no words come out.

Oh, you updated after I replied. Okay, so now flushing isn't for the plant, reducing is. So, how was I wrong again?

Shiggity, good stuff. If people call that method flushing, I'll have to update my definition. I fully agree with not overfeeding.

Argument was all about the claims of stripping excess nutrients from existing flowers.

So if you feed low ppm throughout and stop feeding at the end and call that flushing, I give the smoother, tastier benefits a pass. But honestly guys, don't most people consider flushing to be as I described?

I don't mean to play a game of semantics, but if I say I believe in god, and tell you that my god is just the natural world, I've altered the generally accepted definition of god.
 

ShiggityFlip

Member of the Month: Jan 2016, Aug 2017 - Nug of the Month: June 2017 - Photo of the Month: Sept 2016
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

Where am I wrong? You speak, but no words come out.

Oh, you updated after I replied. Okay, so now flushing isn't for the plant, reducing is. So, how was I wrong again?

Shiggity, good stuff. If people call that method flushing, I'll have to update my definition. I fully agree with not overfeeding.

Argument was all about the claims of stripping excess nutrients from existing flowers.

So if you feed low ppm throughout and stop feeding at the end and call that flushing, I give the smoother, tastier benefits a pass. But honestly guys, don't most people consider flushing to be as I described?
Maybe so Science. But I am a transplant of the nineties. All of the local growers I knew called that the final flush. We all flushed with low ppm nutes and called it flushing because that was the idea of getting nutes out of the soil. I showed them and they liked what they saw. No internets back then.

Someone would talk about flushing with water and we would tell them about our flush style. I guess it was easier to call it a flush because it let them know what we meant to do.Now that things are on the internet it is so much easier to get good (and bad) info lol.
 

LEDBud

Well-Known Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

You are arguing with yourself now ..


Where am I wrong? You speak, but no words come out.

Oh, you updated after I replied. Okay, so now flushing isn't for the plant, reducing is. So, how was I wrong again?

Shiggity, good stuff. If people call that method flushing, I'll have to update my definition. I fully agree with not overfeeding.

Argument was all about the claims of stripping excess nutrients from existing flowers.

So if you feed low ppm throughout and stop feeding at the end and call that flushing, I give the smoother, tastier benefits a pass. But honestly guys, don't most people consider flushing to be as I described?

I don't mean to play a game of semantics, but if I say I believe in god, and tell you that my god is just the natural world, I've altered the generally accepted definition of god.
 

Robert Celt

New Member
re: Flushing & Leaching & Final Bud Swell

OK SG, I was talking about organic soils, and you are talking about liquid organic nutrients. These are 2 very different things. Not sure what medium you were using, peat maybe? I know that grows involving liquid nutrients are often referred to as "soil grows" but the are not "organic soil" grows.

Yes they relay, to some extent, on CEC, but they have more in common with hydro than with a true soil grow. When using bottled nutrients, the plant relies on you to provide the proper ratio of nutrients, and pH, it needs rather than being able to regulate these things itself through exudes.

When you apply nutrients in the wrong ratios, and/or mess up the pH, nutrient burn can occur as you suggested. The nutrients don't require micros to free them and make them available to the plant, they are already in a usable form.

In a true soil grow, the nutrients are there, from start to finish, and micros and plant exudes make the nutrients available as needed. When I build a soil, I use things like alfalfa meal, blood meal, bone meal, etc. The nutrients are locked up in forms unavailable to the plant and are broken down by micros (bacteria, fungus and nematodes) into a usable form. This is a complex and gradual process unlike bottled nutes that are in an instantly available form.

Out of curiosity, what do you use for a medium?
 
Top Bottom