The "I don't starve my plants before harvest" thread

[Gastanker]

First of all, the roll eyes is somewhat offensive when I'm trying to have a grown up discussion with you about this, I don't you know why you have to resort to that.

Secondly, I know there are differences between annual and perennial plants.

How exactly do you know that the rye in that chart was not annual? Where exactly does it specificy if it was Lolium Multiflorum or Lolium Perenne?

How can you say that if I don't know that a fruit is a storage organ then you don't know what to tell me?
What kind of flawed argument is that?

I asked you to show me the evidence, you have showed me none.
You say it's in every biology textbook, I have looked through the ones I own, haven't found a thing.
I've searched the web, all I found on nutrient storage was the chart I linked to you and yet that you shoot down without even know what you are talking about. On top of that you are acting offensive, because you have no idea what you're talking about or because you have dug yourself in a hole, I don't know.

And mellokitty, why do you always seem to like other peoples posts when they posts information that has no basis in fact?
Do you do this just to piss people off, or is it like Gastanker, your flawed humor acting out?
I think it's great you have each others back no matter how foolish your friend sounds, but it reflects very poorly on you. Especially when all you can do is like posts, you can't bring one damn piece of factual information into the discussion. Well done.
Either way, it's downright offensive and I can't believe this is the way you people try to prove a point.​

I thought I was rolling my eyes at herrequin who is trying to personally attack people while making up differing information (differs with his other information). I"m sorry for rolling my eyes at you.

I assume that chart to be talking about perennial rye grass as I am always seeing experiments conducted on perennial rye grass - they choose it for the fact that it is perennial. Here in the US there is a big environmental problem concerning invasive annual grasses replacing the native perennial grasses... I explained this. But there - even if that is discussing annual rye grass, it still has nothing to do with what we are talking about...

In your eyes, biologically what is the purpose of a plants life? What is the purpose of fruits/seeds? If a plants purpose is not to create more plants by making fruit/seed, and fruits/seeds are not storage units for new plants, then I would really like to learn their purpose.

Why are fruits/grains/nuts so high in calories compared to the other parts of the plant?

First thing my book said about seeds/fruits is that they store energy. What type of text were you looking in? If you can't break down to just admit that fruits/seeds are storage units then how will we ever have a legitimate conversation about the more complex aspects? This is super super basic plant biology.

 

[k0ijn]

I thought I was rolling my eyes at herrequin who is trying to personally attack people while making up differing information (differs with his other information). I"m sorry for rolling my eyes at you.

I assume that chart to be talking about perennial rye grass as I am always seeing experiments conducted on perennial rye grass - they choose it for the fact that it is perennial. Here in the US there is a big environmental problem concerning invasive annual grasses replacing the native perennial grasses... I explained this. But there - even if that is discussing annual rye grass, it still has nothing to do with what we are talking about...

Alright, no worries.

I still don't see how you can be certain (since you are assuming) that it is perennial, even though perennial might be the most researched of the two.

Why is nutrient storage of rye grass not applicable to what we're discussing?
Doesn't rye grass use the same basic plant biology to grow and produce as Cannabis does?
The way nutrients like nitrogen are used, broken down, moved etc. is the same for every plant.
Xylem and Plhoem are vital in both cases, and they behave alike across species and genus.

In your eyes, biologically what is the purpose of a plants life? What is the purpose of fruits/seeds? If a plants purpose is not to create more plants by making fruit/seed, and fruits/seeds are not storage units for new plants, then I would really like to learn their purpose.

I agree with what you say here, what I don't agree with is that the fruiting bodies are storages for nutrients as such.
From what I can read about this subject, the stem, leaves and roots of plants are the main storage 'areas'.

The picture you took doesn't specify.
I get that seeds and fruits are filled with stored foods, but exactly what are they talking about?
Are they talking about stored minerals, if so, which?

It's a delicate subject, and I might be wrong, but I'm trying to get to the truth.
I only believe what is fact regarding scientific subjects, I want proof for it.

And I cannot say that seeing a textbook cut out that says:

Seeds and fruits are filled with stored foods intended to help the embryo germinate and grow or to attract and animal to eat the fruit etc. etc.

Is enough proof.

Why are fruits/grains/nuts so high in calories compared to the other parts of the plant?

I really don't think that is relevant to this discussion.
Yes fruits grains and nuts are high in calories and many other substances compared to other parts of the plant.
But we are talking about nutrient storage.
You cannot compare the process of osmosis, diffusion and nutrient storage, usage etc. to how many calories a fruit, grain or nut might have.

I mean, all the nutrients are either broken down, and / or transformed into other substances.

I have grown a lot of plants, including strawberries.
I've fed strawberries with the same nutrients I use for Cannabis.
I have tried different ppms and I have observed that not only do the strawberries taste better with an abundance of nutrients, they also grow larger
I realize a strawberry is not the same as Cannabis, but for the sake of your argument that fruits are high in calories, that can be said of any fruiting body.
And it doesn't follow that because a fruit is high in calories, it's high in nutrients like NPK or any other.

First thing my book said about seeds/fruits is that they store energy. What type of text were you looking in? If you can't break down to just admit that fruits/seeds are storage units then how will we ever have a legitimate conversation about the more complex aspects? This is super super basic plant biology.

Yes I know that fruits are stored with foods, but still it doesn't specify which foods we are talking about.
It could be the proteins and starches? Aren't they "food" as well.
I don't have any problem understanding 'super super basic plant biology' nor advanced biology.

 

[Gastanker]

How can you say that if I don't know that a fruit is a storage organ then you don't know what to tell me?
What kind of flawed argument is that?

I asked you to show me the evidence, you have showed me none.
You say it's in every biology textbook, I have looked through the ones I own, haven't found a thing.
​

Again I say, show me the evidence you are speaking of.
I have had biology A level and I have not read what you describe.

Yes I know that fruits are stored with foods

You adamantly said that fruiting bodies are not storage areas and made me go to the absurd measure of taking a picture of a biology book to show you therwise just to have you instantly change your mind. This is futile.
.

Yes fruits grains and nuts are high in calories and many other substances compared to other parts of the plant.
But we are talking about nutrient storage.

Plants do not store any of the nutrients they uptake as the same mineral they up took. If a plant takes in potassium nitrate KNO3 it doesn't store KNO3 in one of its leaves. The KNO3 is immediately broken down into it's smaller parts and these elements and smaller compounds are used to create something - if not its at least converted to simple inorganic ions.

 

[Gastanker]

You are right, this chart is great - Unfortunately fruiting bodies are not counted due to this experiment taking place during the vegetative state.

Here is one set. The first column of numbers are yield of total plant and the second is the amount of P in the leaves.

So at critical nutrient supply you can yield 95% of the maximum. Running at 95% the plant has 6 P. If you run at abundant - the highest level possible without harming the plant (what most MJ farmers run at) you end up with 25 P in the leaves. You gain 5% yield but you end up 18 extra P. The juiced up plant has over 400% more P than the regular plant.

Yummy 16x the amount of N. Gotta love that really really dark over N fed bud.

Would bud with 3x the amount of sulfur smoke the same as bud with 1/3 the amount of sulfur? I hope you don't smoke the stem of chemmed up bud because according to the chart it has 10x the amount of sulfur - gross!

Do you have a link to this entire study? I would love to read it.

 

[Gastanker]

Found the study and it actually applies more than I gave you credit for. The study is regarding the overuse of fertilizer on row crops in the UK.

I guess these guys have heard of these elusive nutrient stores as well:

According to the chart the amount of excess skyrockets when the plants are fed an overabundance. And these stores occur in all organs...

Oh, and I guess according to them stems don't store much -

But unfortunately we still don't have a solid conclusion.

From this experiment we have gathered that excess nutrients in the soil does lead to excess nutrients in all organs of the plant and that during the vegetative growth cycle rye grass benefits from fertilizer. Great resource. Thank you.

 

[CEEJR]

If the ash is white you did it right flush or no flush.

 

[thechemist310]

Let's look on the bright side! With the exception of a couple ghetto kids, all these arguments have been made in proper English and decent grammar! That's a lot to say about an innerweb forum!

 

[SirLancelot]

haha totally agree, Im actually learning something from this one and people are atleast staying on track and keeping the inner internet thug down. of course there's always a few bad eggs, but we love them all the same lol

 

[Gastanker]

haha totally agree, Im actually learning something from this one and people are atleast staying on track and keeping the inner internet thug down. of course there's always a few bad eggs, but we love them all the same lol

I think we all are. My fiancee was wondering what the hell I was doing breaking out my old text books on the weekend. Fun when people make you think versus just slinging mud (I apologize if I've thrown mud in this thread).

Did you read these?

Vegetative state of rye grass doesn't help us much but I think we can all safely stop arguing about the feasibility of excess nutrient stores.

 

[SirLancelot]

Yea minus the personal attacks Im enjoying it, lol my gf has been wondering the same. SHe's like your never on this much, Im just intrigued with all of the information for once instead of blabel blabel.

Honestly if you feed your plant how it's suppose too be fed your gonna have bomb nug regardless...

 

[Gastanker]

Yea minus the personal attacks Im enjoying it, lol my gf has been wondering the same. SHe's like your never on this much, Im just intrigued with all of the information for once instead of blabel blabel.

Honestly if you feed your plant how it's suppose too be fed your gonna have bomb nug regardless...

Couldn't agree more. Slightly blown away at how many people over feed their plants though... Sometimes this forum reminds me of the exploding Chinese watermelons.

"BEIJING -- Watermelons have been bursting by the score in eastern China after farmers gave them overdoses of growth chemicals during wet weather, creating what state media called fields of "land mines." About 20 farmers around Danyang city in Jiangsu province were affected, losing up to 115 acres (45 hectares) of melon, China Central Television said in an investigative report."

[video=youtube;avqpBlm-DeU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avqpBlm-DeU[/video]

 

[SirLancelot]

hahah that's awesome!

 

[SlimJim503]

Couldn't agree more. Slightly blown away at how many people over feed their plants though... Sometimes this forum reminds me of the exploding Chinese watermelons.

"BEIJING -- Watermelons have been bursting by the score in eastern China after farmers gave them overdoses of growth chemicals during wet weather, creating what state media called fields of "land mines." About 20 farmers around Danyang city in Jiangsu province were affected, losing up to 115 acres (45 hectares) of melon, China Central Television said in an investigative report."

[video=youtube;avqpBlm-DeU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avqpBlm-DeU[/video]

Yeah but the exploding watermelons have nothing to do with flushing it had to do with the seeds and conditions in the region just saying

 

[thechemist310]

Yeah but the exploding watermelons have nothing to do with flushing it had to do with the seeds and conditions in the region just saying

Yeah, let's not have my comment make everyone go soft!!!!!

So after spending 3 days reading this thread I am still utterly confused on what I should do on my first crop. I am half way through week 8 of flower. I have been feeding the FF trio since the very start. I have followed their feeding schedule to the T. I fed for the last time two days ago.

I plan to do a combination of the "flush" technique and the "feed until the end" technique. I will be giving my plants tap water only. Not in any exuberant amounts. Just the normal 1 gallon I give them currently every other day.

It will save nutes and also allow the plant to use up the nutes that I'm positive have been building in the soil over time.

 

[KushDog]

Yeah, let's not have my comment make everyone go soft!!!!!

So after spending 3 days reading this thread I am still utterly confused on what I should do on my first crop. I am half way through week 8 of flower. I have been feeding the FF trio since the very start. I have followed their feeding schedule to the T. I fed for the last time two days ago.

I plan to do a combination of the "flush" technique and the "feed until the end" technique. I will be giving my plants tap water only. Not in any exuberant amounts. Just the normal 1 gallon I give them currently every other day.

It will save nutes and also allow the plant to use up the nutes that I'm positive have been building in the soil over time.

if you dont want chemical taste, flush, if you dont mind the taste in your buds than feed till the end

 

[dannyboy602]

i put a little extra plutonium in my buds near the end. it's the bomb.

 

[k0ijn]

​

• How can you say that if I don't know that a fruit is a storage organ then you don't know what to tell me?
  What kind of flawed argument is that?
  
  I asked you to show me the evidence, you have showed me none.
  You say it's in every biology textbook, I have looked through the ones I own, haven't found a thing.​

  
  ​

  
  ​

What I wrote there was not a statement of fruits not being storage organs.
What I ment was that you what you said "if you don't know fruits are storages organs then I don't know what to tell you" is a flawed argument.
Not the actual statement about fruits being storage organs or not. I don't disagree with "fruiting bodies are storage organs". They are storage organs in many ways, but wether they store substances in surplus and that surplus affects taste, harshness for weed is not conclusive in my honest opinion.
What I'm disputing is that the fruiting bodies store substances which by flushing can be 'used up' and thereby improve taste / harshness.

You adamantly said that fruiting bodies are not storage areas and made me go to the absurd measure of taking a picture of a biology book to show you therwise just to have you instantly change your mind. This is futile.

No, this is not what I ment.
You are overanalyzing what I wrote, I thought I had made it clear. Now however it should be clear (referring to what I wrote above).

Plants do not store any of the nutrients they uptake as the same mineral they up took. If a plant takes in potassium nitrate KNO3 it doesn't store KNO3 in one of its leaves. The KNO3 is immediately broken down into it's smaller parts and these elements and smaller compounds are used to create something - if not its at least converted to simple inorganic ions.

This is a part of my point how you cannot just say that because fruits contain calories, it proves that Cannabis fruiting bodies store substances which can be 'used up' by flushing and thereby improve taste / harshness.
That, in my mind, is a logical fallacy.

 

[Harrekin]

if you dont want chemical taste, flush, if you dont mind the taste in your buds than feed till the end

Have you even harvested your first crop yet? I distinctly remember earlier in the thread it being mentioned you hadn't...so what exactly do you know? Have you tried a side by side of flushed and unflushed yourself personally? If not, then just be quiet and stop spouting myth like its absolute fact.

 

[Gastanker]

​
This is a part of my point how you cannot just say that because fruits contain calories, it proves that Cannabis fruiting bodies store substances which can be 'used up' by flushing and thereby improve taste / harshness.
That, in my mind, is a logical fallacy.

My initial argument was that all portions of the plant contain surplus. You argued against this. I then mentioned that fruiting bodies in particular were storage units. You refuted this as well...and then changed your mind later when presented with evidence otherwise.

Did you miss this? It is the article you brought up and fairly clearly states that all portions of the plant can contain surplus when you over feed and according to the chart it if often in magnitudes of 10x

Flushing = not over feeding so between flush and over feeding the flushed material would have less surplus ion accumulation - if you follow the logic of your own evidence.

Does A + extra ions = A? No... Is it possible that A + extra tastes different than just A? Yes...

Is it possible to taste combusting sulfur and other elements? Yes... What is the fallacy?

 

[k0ijn]

You are right, this chart is great - Unfortunately fruiting bodies are not counted due to this experiment taking place during the vegetative state.

Here is one set. The first column of numbers are yield of total plant and the second is the amount of P in the leaves.

So at critical nutrient supply you can yield 95% of the maximum. Running at 95% the plant has 6 P. If you run at abundant - the highest level possible without harming the plant (what most MJ farmers run at) you end up with 25 P in the leaves. You gain 5% yield but you end up 18 extra P. The juiced up plant has over 400% more P than the regular plant.

Yes I wondered about that myself, but I think what most experienced growers do, is find a balanced PPM level, and always do experiments to get the proper levels which don't harm your plants. At least that is what I do myself, and I'm pretty sure I don't have those levels, I think if I did I would be able to see it on my crop
I do agree that the extra 5% gained is not worth the extra nutrients really, unless it's very important for people to gain 100% productivity.

The question there really is how much does flushing affect the plant, how many nutrients are moved around and whereto, if moved at all?
I'd like to see what the productivity % falls to when the flushing is induced, I wonder how low it goes, since it's more than a deficiency, it's a critical deficiency (depends if one flushes with pure RO water or a higher ppm of course).

Yummy 16x the amount of N. Gotta love that really really dark over N fed bud.

Would bud with 3x the amount of sulfur smoke the same as bud with 1/3 the amount of sulfur? I hope you don't smoke the stem of chemmed up bud because according to the chart it has 10x the amount of sulfur - gross!

Do you have a link to this entire study? I would love to read it.

I would never smoke the stem hehe, nor the leaves, although I do make bubble hash from the leaves.