Bannacis
- Posts
- 1,238
- Reactions
- 1,577
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Points
- 163
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.
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.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??
Believe what you want..."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."
Believe what you want...
It's not my belief. It's scientifically demonstrated.
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.It's not my belief. It's scientifically demonstrated.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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 :)
Yeah send a leaf in here you’ll be in prison. not Everywhere is California.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.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?