The Truth About Flushing

Odin* said:

... but 2 "Cup Wins" (highly subjective and generally "political") don't prove anything VS 1,000's of "unflushed" Cup Wins.

Optimal "diet" will lead to healthy "metabolism" and "waste". Example; how many Enemas have you had? If you say "0", then you "must be" backed up with excess waste. Right? The only reason for a flush/enema is due to unhealthy nutrient regimen/diet. Feed the wrong nutrient levels and you will require an enema/nutrient "flush". This also accounts for kidney/gallbladder/bladder stones. Appropriate nutrient vs H2O levels completely eliminates this error/enema necessity. Appropriate "water to micro/macro-nutrient" levels completely negate "flushing".

Don't believe me, just ask any "Dr"/Botanist. Why should you trust me? I'm kinda "In the Know".

Click to expand...

This particular cup wasnt political....there where over 120 judges and the samples only had a number...so it was truly a blind taste test...

Has anyone else noticed those against flushing or leaching have never tried it?

I see it all time.

Those that have flushed and leached noticed a difference against when they didn't?

It is plausible to test a hypothesis before making a conclusion.

Scientific method and all that jazz.

But hey, what do I know?

I'm just some guy that likes to see for myself instead of just following the herd.

stnr420 said:

This particular cup wasnt political....there where over 120 judges and the samples only had a number...so it was truly a blind taste test...

Click to expand...

What was his winning percentage? Do you know? He could of won it with one more vote than his closest competitor. If it was a unanimous win I would considering what he has to say.

Enigma said:

Has anyone else noticed those against flushing or leaching have never tried it?

Click to expand...

Nope, I haven't noticed that -- because it's not true.

I wonder why horticulturalist do it then?

I wonder why they don't just keep feeding, I mean that would be more money for my LHS but he swears by it.

My Grandparents and Father farmed, I have not. I learn from those that have done or are doing, I steer clear of drug addicts trying to give me information.

Enigma said:

I steer clear of drug addicts trying to give me information.

Click to expand...

Yet another assumption.
Thanks for sharing.

Enigma said:

I wonder why horticulturalist do it then?

I wonder why they don't just keep feeding, I mean that would be more money for my LHS but he swears by it.

My Grandparents and Father farmed, I have not. I learn from those that have done or are doing, I steer clear of drug addicts trying to give me information.

Click to expand...

That comes down to their bottom line. Hard enough to make a living from farming nowadays.

Assumption?

Are you proposing there aren't any drug addicts on this board?

boilingoil said:

That comes down to their bottom line. Hard enough to make a living from farming nowadays.

Click to expand...

My Cousin's husband provides very well for her and their children.

It is not what you do, it is how you do it.

Chunky Stool said:

Nope, I haven't noticed that -- because it's not true.

Click to expand...

What isn't true?

That flushing does nothing?
If flushing does nothing, then can we conclude that the plants will perform the same with or without supplementation?


(Flush || non-Flush) = same plants?

Why feed what cannot be discerned from not feeding?

Are you saying @Chunky Stool that you continue to feed plants that you otherwise cannot tell a difference if the plant has been fed or not?

CannaBruh said:

IF we cannot remove nutrients from a plant, why do we supplement plant growth with nutrients? Stop and really think about the underlying questions behind what I'm asking.

Click to expand...

you're not supposed to use so much that they aren't used up by the plant in the time between feedings.
and the underlying answer is, we aren't trying to imitate nature indoors. we can't. so we have to take advantage of what we can.
we can give the plant a constant supply of nutrients in a close to perfect balance that it could never get in nature.
we can't give them the sun, but we can give them a well balanced substitute that they get all day, with no shadows or clouds.
we can prevent most pests and get rid of those that do slip through.
you use what you can to offset what you can't......

CannaBruh said:

IF we cannot remove nutrients from a plant, why do we supplement plant growth with nutrients? Stop and really think about the underlying questions behind what I'm asking.

Click to expand...

Supplementing a nutrient is different.

Articulate how you remove a nutrient. Its not like nitrogen goes straight from the roots to the plant. It is broken down and used.

How do you remove something that is? Meaning the plant literally grew from the nutrients it has used. Bow can they be removed?

A fade is not using excess nutrients. It is simply moving mobile elements from lower growth to new growth.

I mean if it works, articulate it.

The only thing leeching is for is excess salt in the medium. Your own book you took a pic of states such.

stnr420 said:

This particular cup wasnt political....there where over 120 judges and the samples only had a number...so it was truly a blind taste test...

Click to expand...

How do you know that though? I believe those things to be suspect.

Who were the judges? How do we know that the numbers were random and no one else knew.

It stands to reason that the cups would be corrupt. Anything that involves money is corrupt and winning a cup is big money.

whitebb2727 said:

Supplementing a nutrient is different.

Articulate how you remove a nutrient. Its not like nitrogen goes straight from the roots to the plant. It is broken down and used.

How do you remove something that is? Meaning the plant literally grew from the nutrients it has used. Bow can they be removed?

A fade is not using excess nutrients. It is simply moving mobile elements from lower growth to new growth.

I mean if it works, articulate it.

The only thing leeching is for is excess salt in the medium. Your own book you took a pic of states such.

Click to expand...

Ya I've said as much, you really need to keep up with the entire discussion and to why I posted that picture. It wasn't to support anything other than leaching has been used in soils, and it is NOT what I'm practicing when I say "flush"

It was to draw that difference, then someone chirped in about leaching not used in soil or only used in hydro hence the photo of the excerpt from the book demonstrating that what we know of leaching came from standards set by soil growers using the practice. Nowhere in the text is a 100% leaching mentioned, nor is any mention of a flush.

See I'm having to defend a point I made to clear up something to another user when what you're arguing now is so far detracted from the original argument I'm more or less jaded even trying to keep up with these side discussions....

I'm not going to respond to the rest as I think it can be cleared up if you go back and read a few pages with all due respect.

Enigma said:

My Cousin's husband provides very well for her and their children.

It is not what you do, it is how you do it.

Click to expand...

Not saying you can't make a living farming. But if he's not farming a 1,000 acres he is living on borrowed money for his crops in the ground now. I farmed 200 acres for 35 years and still had to have a regular job to support mine and my family's lifestyle.

WeedFreak78 said:

Top up with RO water only weeks 7+8.

Click to expand...

So you too do some less aggressive "flushing" excellent @WeedFreak78 !

The only difference is I dump the reservoir before I top up, and I use distilled not RO.

I differ in that for a plant that goes 70+ I won't start the "RO only" or distilled only, or the "flush" until 56 days of flowering. Shorter flowering period varieties I'll start flushing sooner.


What do you do for weeks 9, 10, & 11? Or have you chopped at 56 days?

CannaBruh said:

Ok, but ask yourself, if a flush is "moot" does that not also make feeding to harvest "moot?"

If you cannot make a discernible difference, why does anyone pour food on their plants immediately before harvest?

That's what I want, quantify for me what exactly you take away feeding vs not in that last week (or two depending if you chop finished plants or white puffy plants)

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone that does that. Most people just feed lightly towards the end or stop the week of harvest . Why would someone dump a shit load of plant food into a pot just to wash it out later?

It's funny you guys are bashing gml. The truth is he doesn't give a frick what the haters say. He knows what works for him (as well as what doesn't) and he grows a product in high demand. And he grows a lot of it in a 30+ light grow.

As they say, you can't really argue with the success. You are arguing over the methods.

I don't really get why it matters so much to someone who grows organically what someone who grows with synthetics does. If you get 2 pounds a light, and everyone thinks it's the absolute best they have ever smoked, it shouldn't matter how someone else gets the same results.

I won't be flushing this round, but I can't really do it easily since I'm growing in a sips container with a super soil mix. I'm finishing up week 4 of flower and haven't added any npk yet. But it's a rich soil in a large container and there may well be minerals left until the end. If the result is this run burns like a flare I'll certainly look at a way to flush next round.

And if not flushin works I'll be just as happy. Just sayin......

mr sunshine said:

I don't know anyone that does that. Most people just feed lightly towards the end or stop the week of harvest . Why would someone dump a shit load of plant food into a pot just to wash it out later?

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase, why would anyone feed lightly towards the end or stop the week of harvest and still argue with my methods as they are very similar?

Who is guilty of "shit load of plant food into a pot just to wash it out later?" please rephrase if it will help convey a message.

Enigma said:

Has anyone else noticed those against flushing or leaching have never tried it?

I see it all time.

Those that have flushed and leached noticed a difference against when they didn't?

It is plausible to test a hypothesis before making a conclusion.

Scientific method and all that jazz.

But hey, what do I know?

I'm just some guy that likes to see for myself instead of just following the herd.

Click to expand...

Bull.

I've tried it. On everything from organic to hydro.

CannaBruh said:

Ya I've said as much, you really need to keep up with the entire discussion and to why I posted that picture. It wasn't to support anything other than leaching has been used in soils, and it is NOT what I'm practicing when I say "flush"

It was to draw that difference, then someone chirped in about leaching not used in soil or only used in hydro hence the photo of the excerpt from the book demonstrating that what we know of leaching came from standards set by soil growers using the practice. Nowhere in the text is a 100% leaching mentioned, nor is any mention of a flush.

See I'm having to defend a point I made to clear up something to another user when what you're arguing now is so far detracted from the original argument I'm more or less jaded even trying to keep up with these side discussions....

I'm not going to respond to the rest as I think it can be cleared up if you go back and read a few pages with all due respect.

Click to expand...

Ah. Ok.

I got you.

My question wasn't necessarily directed at you. I understand where the practice of leeching came from. I was raised in a farm belt. Fields that were thousands of acres.

My question and statement was more to anyone that does "flush."

I would like them to articulate how it works. I understand it removes excess salt from the medium.

I wanted one of the pro "flushing" guys to explain how an immobile nutrient can be removed and that the fade isn't nutrients being removed but merely being moved from one part of the plant to the part they smoke.