Honestly don't care what the buds smoke like, look like or smell like.
Whoa... Really? You did not just say that, did you?
If you don't follow processes fully, you aren't following processes fully. I smoke plenty of dank from other folks that tastes fine, looks good and is strong- doesn't mean its grown to the utmost...
I have run organic soils too (my first love), and this coco is no where near organic soil as a medium simply because of uptake. We are essentially running hydro with a medium, uptake will be faster, results from changes more noticable and quicker. Its not like soil, where ya break down way early and can flush forever and the humic/fulvics take care of any inconsistencies in the flush. This is more direct.
I didn't say the internal would be exact, but as you said- there is a correlation (most test ive seen are up to say +/- 1.0, where if properly chelated is fine). Never said anything bout EC and build up, just referred to internal pH for reference of uptake. And im sure you have seen if you input in appropriate ph range, the internal is probably in range too. So again, if tissue levels can have higher nutrient concentrations, why the hell would you let that 'similar' ph value go out of range when you NEED to process whats internal?
Am I going in circles with logic here? where the fuck is the bangin the head on the wall icon?
It's not that you're going in circles with logic, it's that you seem to refuse to accept that there is a high degree of
artistry when one enters into husbandry of any living thing. This explains why certain fishkeepers can breed anything in absolutely the
wrong conditions, according to science, yet others can't keep anything alive even though they're doing everything the science tells them to do. It explains why some people continually breed and grow the dankest, bestest shit, under CFLs, yet others can't seem to get a single cross right.
If you're in any scientific field at all, then I know that you are much like other scientists I know and have found yourself caught up within a scientific paradigm from which you don't seem to be able to wrest yourself free, because what others are talking about just doesn't make sense, not when held against the science. I'll tell you what I tell them--science can't account for everything, and variability factors is the least of it.
Believe it or not, I read as much as I possibly can and try to absorb as much information as I possibly can, from as many sources as I possibly can. Does that mean I'm going to believe you just because you're so insistent that your way is the best way? No, it sure doesn't. And that's because I've learned how to tease apart good information from bad, and I use *that* litmus to measure all information against, while working hard to keep my mind open and my own ability to learn from the
best in the field sharp. So, when I smoke something that I think is spectacular, I ask questions, lots and lots of questions. And
that plays a very large role in how I've arrived at doing things the way I do.
I'm not going to say you are flat out wrong, just that I disagree with the bother of pHing those last few waterings (I don't actually "flush" my coco by passing 2x-4x the pot volume of water through the media) makes any real difference in the final product--not in final yield, not in final flavor and quality. I am getting much closer to hitting yields that I want consistently, and, this is absolutely key for me,
am not sacrificing quality of product to get the yield. I am truly crafting a product here, that's how I feel about this.