THCFarmer.com
121,111 Members Log In Register
Log In Register

Is Pre-harvest Flushing A Myth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pimp T
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Is Pre-harvest Flushing A Myth?

Pimp T 289 Replies 60,148 Views
Page 8 of 15 · Replies 141–160 of 290
#141
Glow said:
Hey all just to play devils advocate a scientific study actually has demonstrated that flushing has no effect at all re reducing nutrient build up in the plant tissue. This stands to reason because from a plant science perspective removing stored nutrients by starving the plant pre harvest would not remove/reduce particularly immobile nutrients and if anything mobile nutrients such as N would head to the flowers where they are most needed which is sort of the opposite to the desired outcome people seek in flushing. Synopsis of this paper here Note: "Flushing was found to be ineffective in removing any significant amount of nutrient from the bud." Thoughts please??
Click to expand...
Flushing is not for removing nutrient buildup in plant, but to remove it from the soil. so the article is correct in that it does not remove from bud...but from soil.
 
#142
Glow said:
"Then goes to its reserves n eats stored nutes from leaves. So the plant itself is not flushed. It flushes itself eating the stored nutes. "

No this can't possibly happen and this also BTW has been scientifically proven in cannabis production through a recent study. That's the myth.

Synopsis of research here...

Note: "Flushing was found to be ineffective in removing any significant amount of nutrient from the bud."
Click to expand...
Believe what you want...
 
#144
Glow said:
It's not my belief. It's scientifically demonstrated.
Click to expand...
Glow said:
It's not my belief. It's scientifically demonstrated.
Click to expand...
I am saying you can believe flushing is a myth or not. I know the article is about flushing the plant. But I never thought people were flushing the plant, just the soil. Flushing the soil works for me.
 
#145
Bannacis said:
I am saying you can believe flushing is a myth or not. I know the article is about flushing the plant. But I never thought people were flushing the plant, just the soil. Flushing the soil works for me.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing with you. You could quite feasibly flush a fair few nutrients from soil - particularly anions (lesser so cations but that would depend on the numbers of CEC binding sites, bulk density etc). And if you read my posts you will find I am very open minded on flushing. For example, while it is impossible to flush stored nutrients from the plant tissue my theory is something may be going on from an organic and not inorganic level. What is a myth though is the commonly asserted position that by running water only the plant is forced to feed off stored nutrients and as such inorganic minerals in the plant are miraculously depleted. Can't happen - end of story.
 
#146
Glow said:
No one is arguing with you. You could quite feasibly flush a fair few nutrients from soil - particularly anions (lesser so cations but that would depend on the numbers of CEC binding sites, bulk density etc). And if you read my posts you will find I am very open minded on flushing. For example, while it is impossible to flush stored nutrients from the plant tissue my theory is something may be going on from an organic and not inorganic level. What is a myth though is the commonly asserted position that by running water only the plant is forced to feed off stored nutrients and as such inorganic minerals in the plant are miraculously depleted. Can't happen - end of story.
Click to expand...
the inorganic minerals are used by the damn plant. Converted in some way. Common sense says if you add the stuff through water you can rinse it with water. Once the plant had no food source at the roots it will survive on itself if not then why when I actually flush I can watch the plant pull all the life out of its leaves. Idk books don’t produce good bud. People that flush do.
 
#147
Monster762 said:
the inorganic minerals are used by the damn plant. Converted in some way. Common sense says if you add the stuff through water you can rinse it with water. Once the plant had no food source at the roots it will survive on itself if not then why when I actually flush I can watch the plant pull all the life out of its leaves. Idk books don’t produce good bud. People that flush do.
Click to expand...


Science says you're wrong. Have you ever run leaf tissue analysis on a preflush and after flush plant? I sort of cringe when I hear the term "common sense".

"Once the plant had no food source at the roots it will survive on itself" ----- There's no need for a plant to survive on itself if cell division is nil or thereabouts. You're in denial of basic plant science.

"if not then why when I actually flush" ----- Ah well my man there is the million dollar question:-) My views are pretty clear. I have a theory and that theory would need to be tested before drawing any conclusion. The same way the theory has been tested about a plant ,miraculously cannibalizing itself :-)
 
#148
Glow said:
Science says you're wrong. Have you ever run leaf tissue analysis on a preflush and after flush plant? I sort of cringe when I hear the term "common sense".

"Once the plant had no food source at the roots it will survive on itself" ----- There's no need for a plant to survive on itself if cell division is nil or thereabouts. You're in denial of basic plant science.

"if not then why when I actually flush" ----- Ah well my man there is the million dollar question:) My views are pretty clear. I have a theory and that theory would need to be tested before drawing any conclusion. The same way the theory has been tested about a plant ,miraculously cannibalizing itself :)
Click to expand...
Not everyone has a lab or funding to go to one. Common sense says life goes on did you watch Jurassic park? Movie but valuable lesson there. Explains it all. People when starved get skinnier why. Using reserves. Plants hermie why. Last resort for pollen. Life goes on. The book probably says that in the small print to counter all the bs in it.
 
#149
Agghhhhh there's common sense again. Take a bow. We have a flat earther in our midst :)

Oh and tissue analysis is readily available through several US labs and very cheap so most do have access to a lab.
 
#150
Glow said:
Agghhhhh there's common sense again. Take a bow. We have a flat earther in our midst :)

Oh and tissue analysis is readily available through several US labs and very cheap so most do have access to a lab.
Click to expand...
Yeah send a leaf in here you’ll be in prison. not Everywhere is California.
 
#151
Okay well others have run the analysis for you. The answer is flushing has no or very minimal effect on the plant nutrient status. This has been concluded; however, you choose to deny the irrefutable conclusion.
 
#152
good discussion aggressive as it might be

what would be the number one reason a person would want to flush?

I would assume it would be for taste perceived reasons

The only 2 things I have encountered was flame retardant smoke, and a chemical taste what I would call nitrogen tasting

IDK I learned at a young age most of the crap on shelves is junk and can all be achieved through nature
pesticides and fungicides though are a tough one most people don't wanna hear about the long grind and just want you to dump stuff on the lawn while they are at work and put doggy signs up to free up liability from the dink dog next door they secretly wish would eat it

most people just wanna dump shart all over the lawns, plants where as most runs off into the same systems the drink water eventually from..oh yeah they don't drink that water they use bottled water

then those same people make it so I can't use plastic bags cuz they wanna show lil X how to save the world

well anyways I can't wait to see how beneficial nematodes work and it is awesome I can legally explore options and don't have to dump shart on my crap and then waste water to rinse the shart out of my plantand then wonder if that is worth it

I like that cure...happy mixed with angry rant back to happy

it is mine all mine!
 
#153
Seems like some are not reading where Glow writes- there is no benefit to feeding in the final weeks. He also leaves the door open to the benefit of flushing on some level. He has shared scientific data, not argued feeding until harvest day.
 
#154
I'm not angry mate. All good with me. Although I do think it is important and get past myths such as a plant acts like a human and burns fat and then muscle tissue when starved. Humans don't photosynthesize and humans don't have phloem and xylem and so on. And good point on nitrogen tasting. Nitrogen burns nasty and definitely has an acrid taste. Nitrogen is mobile and down regulates so something could go on there if you starved a plant although tissue testing tells us otherwise (N status remains about the same).
 
#155
3 balls said:
Seems like some are not reading where Glow writes- there is no benefit to feeding in the final weeks. He also leaves the door open to the benefit of flushing on some level. He has shared scientific data, not argued feeding until harvest day.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sort of sitting on the fence here because in my mind undoubtedly the flush has benefits to taste. A myth does not become so widespread and supported unless there is something to it on a practical level.
 
#156
yea...the problemis like anything if you ask someone hey this taste a lil like nitrogen please explain means ur @===> is < the mine when its really is not it is just a question

I have tasted it a few times in my life same thing won't burn and taste super sweet makes the tongue a lil tingly even

I like the passion!
 
#157
oh so anyways does the myth as you present it not what the original intention of flushing meant?

the question really is why do people flush

where did the "myth" come from

IMO taste from nitrogen

Nitrogen is mobile and down regulates so something could go on there if you starved a plant although tissue testing tells us otherwise (N status remains about the same).

So I would say flushing has a benefit if the plant is then starved for the remainder of time to help with taste/burn from high nitrogen levels

is that a reasonable conclusion here?

edit..I further read "although" and then offering a scientific test proving other wise so IDK we are all over the place here

 
Last edited:
#158
The myth is that by starving a plant you can force it to utilize nutrients that are found in the tissue. What isn't a myth is you can flush nutrients to some degree or a high degree from soil or hydroponic substrates.
 
#159
Glow said:
Okay well others have run the analysis for you. The answer is flushing has no or very minimal effect on the plant nutrient status. This has been concluded; however, you choose to deny the irrefutable conclusion.
Click to expand...
True it does not immediately strip the plant but by stripping the plants food source( soil hydro solution etc ) it goes to its leaves to survive. And if flush did nothing it wouldn’t force a fade in the plant. I’ll show that soon if you want.couple weeks out. I can “like clockwork” make them fade. Nice purples pinks n all. It’ll start 2 days after my initial flush.
Again proving the flush does cause the fade and directly does cause the plant to use up its reserves
I will personally prove that I’m right and whoever’s conclusions are wrong.

The plants tell you all this instead of a book if you just listen to em
 
#160
The myth is that by starving a plant you can force it to utilize nutrients that are found in the tissue

When there is an excess of carbohydrates in the plants, then it is stored as a reserve for later use.

I would say yes and on a common sense level why would plants "store" energy if not to use that later on
 
Page 8 of 15 · Replies 141–160 of 290
Back
Top Bottom