Another little reference blurb to satisfy my curiosity...
Flushing seems to be a lot of the hubbub going on around here as of late (probably always, given its controversial status).
It would seem that, basically:
Yes - flushing can remove salt buildup that can lead to harsher bud.
No - flushing cannot remove some controversial substances such a PGRs (plant growth regulators) that systemically incorporate themselves into the plant’s structure.
…as suspected.
• Growing practices and the use of potentially harmfulchemical additives
(This article is a little less intense, but still seems to be based off of some good citation.)
I did cross-reference and there seems to be unanimous agreement with this stance.
Now, my adjacent curiosity was the effect of flushing used to prompt the plant into releasing extra terminal phytochemicals. I.e. - loading up the terpenoids, cannabinoids, etc.
We know that many of these products are due to environmental/stress factors, so, it would only stand to reason that a critical lack of nutrients would also initiate their production.
That curiosity was somewhat satisfied by consumer articles like,
•
This
I'd like to dig into the source of this "fact". Strong statement.
•
This
•
And This
So, while they didn't all give me much to confirm or deny my working environmental/stress theory, they did give a little more insight into the actual efficacy of flushing. Like...
• Removing nutrient concentrations that interfere with phytochemical expression.
• The harmfulness of nitrosamine
• The term "organoleptic" which is, via
wikipedia
And, in favor of my theory, the "fact":
• Nitrogen deficiencies prompt cannabinoid and terpenoid production.
