I think the real debate is whether or not starving the plant of nutrients in its critical growth time (the last 2 weeks) will in fact have non-chemical tasting buds. In my experience, not cutting early, drying properly (preferably 7-11days), and curing properly, is where your taste comes from, and is just as important as the growing itself.
the words don’t matter, it’s all about that base, bout that base, bout that base… ‘In my experience, not cutting early, drying properly (preferably 7-11days), and curing properly, is where your taste comes from, and is just as important as the growing itself.’ @Aquaponic_Dumme
Robert’s ILGM nutes fertilize at low numbers ppm, under 1000
Advanced Nutrients numbers approach 2000 ppm
I tried both…ILGM’s were too expensive for my hydro, took too long to replenish…but they worked great…just I got a bump of 100 ppm for every 10 ml, and a bottle was 250 ml
AN’s nutes were cheaper and sold by Amazon, and they worked
both worked, one at double the ppm (and half the price)
just wondering about what’s left behind for comparison
What type of nutrients don’t really matter. Plants require certain nutrients to survive. These studies were done in the 1930’s Hoagland & Arnon. With the source being irrelevant, Premixes mix their nutrient lines based on this formula.
With that said, most nutrient companies like AN suggest overfeeding for a norm. This leads to you buying more, more frequently. It’s business 101. The more you use, the more you buy.
I don’t know what’s in ILGM’s nutrient mix, and have never used it.
PPM’s are not universal. Some mixes have higher amounts of compounds then others, but should still fall within the averages of Hoaglands Solution for larger fruiting plants.
N 210 ppm
K 235 ppm
Ca 200 ppm
P 31 ppm
S 64 ppm
Mg 48 ppm
B 0.5 ppm
Fe 1 to 5 ppm
Mn 0.5 ppm
Zn 0.05 ppm
Cu 0.02 ppm
Mo 0.01 ppm
Notice silica is missing…
I use my own mix that’s very close to this.
Now how many people grow beans in their garden with the same doses of nutrients we force feed our plants to get those huge nugs and dense buds and do you burn vegtables and inhale the smoke from them? Your stomach is full of acids and can digest almost anything your lungs and throat are a bit more sensitive many things that seem tasteless and harmless when vaporized are actually not. I have seen and tasted buds witch were under flushed can’t keep the joints lit harsh and hard on the throat and lungs and they burn super dark ashes. On the other spectrum a nicely flushed bud burns even and clean stays lit and is far smoother smoke
White ash = low humidity, not low chemicals (cured improperly). I fail to see a link in feeding schedule and white ash. …Another one of the myths
For example, cigarettes have a ton of chemical additives and still burn white ash.
If youve been smoking ash that’s black & harsh, it’s because it was dried wrong and probably not cured.
I’ve addressed this topic numerous times over the last couple of years.
For the most part, what @Donaldj said is correct.
This is not entirely correct.
Properly “flushed” and cured weed will burn easily and not burn out, and will have the resulting white ash, even at the proper stored high humidity of around 65%.
For the most part the chemicals they add to tobacco are meant to make it burn faster and more evenly I am not saying people need to rinse soil if there is no huge build up simply that changing to straight ph’d water for last week or 2 can be helpful.
Maybe I should have been more clear. I agree with you up to a point. I’ve always understood 62% was the proper RH to cure and store cannabis in. Where we differ is the flushing.
My main point to this thead is the term “flushing” being defined by the growing community as an act to clean out the chemical, harsh taste to bud, that’s being smoked. In fact, that is NOT the definition. As aforementioned, “flushing” is the cleansing of soil, and is completely separate for the act of starving the plant.
“Starving your plant” for the clean, smooth, smoke is a different topic. I don’t mind debating it as I don’t agree with it either, but its not “Flushing”, even though the flushing technique is used to accomplish doing it.
Be as it may, cigarettes contain:
Acetone – found in nail polish remover
Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye
Ammonia – a common household cleaner
Arsenic – used in rat poison
Benzene – found in rubber cement
Butane – used in lighter fluid
Cadmium – active component in battery acid
Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes
Formaldehyde – embalming fluid
Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid
Lead – used in batteries
Naphthalene – an ingredient in mothballs
Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel
Nicotine – used as insecticide
Tar – material for paving roads
Toluene - used to manufacture paint
Depending on preference and other factors, the proper RH for curing can be as low as about 55%, to as high as 65%.
I did say…[quote=“MacGyverStoner, post:16, topic:6432”]
stored high humidity of around 65%
I also did say the term is a misnomer, and not only that, I also said an actual flush is not necessarily needed…
And yes, the term originated with flushing soil for [quote=“MacGyverStoner, post:20, topic:6432”]
extreme pH problems, nutrient mineral salt toxicity build ups, and general over fertilization.
Although I don’t agree with starving you plants, ever, I want to thank you from clearing it up on where you stand on the issue. Up to this point, I haven’t has time to read all those threads yet. Again, thanks for your input.
Starving the plant is a common used term that isn’t entirely accurate either.
When you do read my comments in those threads, you will notice I describe the process, and it is more a reduction of nutrients available to the plant.
This “starving” is not really starving at all, if the plant is watered only without nutrients for maybe up to two weeks in soil, the plant is still feeding off what is available in the soil and in its leaves.
I also do mention the length of this low or no nutrients period is entirely dependent on how the plant is fed up to near the end of the grow, and for example, with the Lucas formula, Lucas does not recommend an actual flush at all. This where the “art” comes in and the skill of reading your plants to know when to stop giving added nutrients to the plant.
This “pH water only and no nutrients” might be as short as a day in a well tuned and maintained DWC system.
I agree completely with this, and I believe the problem is the ignorance of feeding, and understanding the metabolism and uptake of the nutrient in the plant.
Why try to fix a problem that you create when it’s so much easier to avoid having a problem in the first place.
…I would still like to see real science behind withholding levels of nutrients that benefit taste.
I’m hoping just the opposite…
I’m hoping some new growers actually do a comparison and give us their opinions, not more science
I believe @latewood has some of that info about how the nutrients stored in the leaves, and by extension – elsewhere where chlorophyll is also produced and stored, and how this does indeed feed the plant for quite sometime. Much of the harshness comes from the chlorophyll itself, and this is just another way of reducing chlorophyll and nutrient salts from the plant’s tissues.
Hopefully he’ll have some time to stop bye and provide some of that information.
Actually this has been pretty much proven, in side by side grows.
It is a very common practice for almost every grower that has won cannabis cups around the world.
@Paranorman, “science” is just a way to test and measure things in such a way the data can be collected and compared.
Defined: Science – is a systematic method that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
This is also sometimes called “the scientific method”.
More growers experimenting and comparing is a somewhat “scientific” process and could be described as “science” or certainly a part of the scientific method.
I’d love see any information on this, yes please @latewood, please join this conversation.
I have some information, but it does not agree with cutting nutrient strength. The information I have applies to chlorophyll being the main culprit of harsh smoke. From what I’ve read, interfering with the plants natural metabolism (i.e. under feeding), will infact start the breakdown process of chlorophyll, and infact, start the curing process essentially on the plant, however, chlorophyll would naturally break down even if you wait out those last two weeks, with proper harvesting and time.
Its almost like, sacrificing yield quantities for harvest speed.
Exactly, this is what I have said, it is actually part of the curing process.
If done at the right time, no yield will be sacrificed. A shorter “traditional curing” can be done, maintaining more of the lighter terpene flavors that would be lost with a more aggressive curing process.