Flushing: The Myth that won't Die

[Rasterman]

Science wins, one grower at a time!

Yep, we're going to follow the science! C'mon, man!

 

[PotDaddy]

Yep, we're going to follow the science! C'mon, man!

Nice one!

#FJB

 

[Peacefulgarden]

Anyone flush/stop feeding towards the end, monitoring the medium's e.c.? Otherwise just permutations 'flushing', and more of soft feed cut, which the plant would benefit from anyways. I would guess towards the end, if you are not monitoring e.c. of the medium, there's probably enough built up in there for a little while anyways, assuming you not watering with much runoff

 

[Unvaccinated]

A non flusher here :smoking:

 

[Peacefulgarden]

A non flusher here :smoking:

Same, to much thinking for me.

 

[DankDoctor420]

There needs to be more information released as to how testing and judging went and curing time and dry time and conditions. More info would be better. When I started growing years ago for a while I never flushed. Now I flush 10 days minimum and up to 3 weeks depending on the trichomes. After the last plain watering I let the pots dry up bone dry and then cut the plants down and do a whole plant hang for the dry. Another test with all the info would be better in my opinion. I've done both ways and I prefer to keep flushing. I grow with nutes tho. If your growing organic I don't believe you flush as you would as growing with nutrients. But I'm not experienced in organics so don't quote me or judge me on organic knowledge cus I don't know much but I am interested in learning either the build a soil way or maybe guia green some day. I see both products producing good results on YouTube through build a soil channel and Mr Canucks Grows channel. Been trying to learn it a little. Down the road I plan to switch to only organics. In time...

 

[Son of Hobbes]

At my last commercial facility, we both flushed (in the sense of simply cutting nutrients for a week or two and giving plain water. Not excessive amounts, just the normal amount we'd give whether it was a feeding or watering (to slight runoff,) and not flushed.

We found absolutely no discernible difference in the quality of the flower based on lab submissions, and this was compared against historical data of running the same cultivars for over 1.5 years.

What we did find is that feeding up to chop, we saw VERY NOTICEABLE weight gains from those same cultivars for the same time of year, compared to cutting feeds and giving straight water. Feeding up to chop doesn't mean you're giving some 1500 ppm full dose feed; with our regiment many things tapered off (and these were instructions from the nutrient company, not our own, so not all nutrient companies are even encouraging a "flush.")

BUT, we also saw a savings of over $100/week just in nutrient costs alone for giving our finishing section of plants water versus nutrients. With a rotating/weekly harvest, that's over $400/month to skip the nutes the last week of growth. That pays the wages of a part-time employee for a week who could have done an epic amount of things that could help influence other areas of the grow/growth in the plants (pruning plants, skirting plants, etc.) Considering most grows run on bare-bone/skeleton crews, it's not something to sneeze at at the very least.

I moderate/admin for 7 different cannabis groups on Facebook (totaling over 60,000 members,) and the incredible shift of growers finally questioning, challenging, and ultimately calling "flush" bullshit, is staggering and overwhelming. Like, the lack of science (where it's otherwise been just blindly accepted or accepted as anecdotal proof) is being recognized, and more and more growers are skipping the flush (or at least, acknowledging what it's doing or not doing.)

 

[pop22]

Yes, I can see it as acceptable in a large op as a money saving protocol. But it's great to see/hear the myth finally dying. I mean, it even flys in the face of common sense, and as I've mentioned, even the science studies have failed to mention, WHERE do the remaining nutrients go?? To the buds! That plant will stavre it's self to death so that the buds survive in hopes of seed production! So the concept of removing nutrients from the buds is totally flawed. I'd like to see a total content test of buds flushed and unflushed. I'm willing to bet there is very little difference.

And what would it be different for organic? Why would you not flush organic but do so when using manufactured nutrients? There is NO difference. Once again, I'll ask, what is it you think your removing that isn't present in organics? Point me to the "nasty chemicals" that are supposedly present. Funny, NO ONE has ever answered that question, because they are merely repeating a myth started by some old "new ager hippy" who was enlightened by a 2 hour class in meditation...........

BTW the you is a general statement, not YOU SoH lol! You've seen the light!

At my last commercial facility, we both flushed (in the sense of simply cutting nutrients for a week or two and giving plain water. Not excessive amounts, just the normal amount we'd give whether it was a feeding or watering (to slight runoff.)

We found absolutely no discernible difference in the quality of the flower based on lab submissions, and this was compared against historical data of running the same cultivars for over 1.5 years.

What we did find is that feeding up to chop, we saw VERY NOTICEABLE weight gains from those same cultivars for the same time of year, compared to cutting feeds and giving straight water. Feeding up to chop doesn't mean you're giving some 1500 ppm full dose feed; with our regiment many things tapered off (and these were instructions from the nutrient company, not our own, so not all nutrient companies are even encouraging a "flush.")

BUT, we also saw a savings of over $100/week just in nutrient costs alone for giving our finishing section of plants water versus nutrients. With a rotating/weekly harvest, that's over $400/month to skip the nutes the last week of growth. That pays the wages of a part-time employee for a week who could have done an epic amount of things that could help influence other areas of the grow/growth in the plants (pruning plants, skirting plants, etc.) Considering most grows run on bare-bone/skeleton crews, it's not something to sneeze at at the very least.

I moderate/admin for 7 different cannabis groups on Facebook (totaling over 60,000 members,) and the incredible shift of growers finally questioning, challenging, and ultimately calling "flush" bullshit, is staggering and overwhelming. Like, the lack of science (where it's otherwise been just blindly accepted or accepted as anecdotal proof) is being recognized, and more and more growers are skipping the flush (or at least, acknowledging what it's doing or not doing.)

 

[elcoloan]

At my last commercial facility, we both flushed (in the sense of simply cutting nutrients for a week or two and giving plain water. Not excessive amounts, just the normal amount we'd give whether it was a feeding or watering (to slight runoff,) and not flushed.

We found absolutely no discernible difference in the quality of the flower based on lab submissions, and this was compared against historical data of running the same cultivars for over 1.5 years.

What we did find is that feeding up to chop, we saw VERY NOTICEABLE weight gains from those same cultivars for the same time of year, compared to cutting feeds and giving straight water. Feeding up to chop doesn't mean you're giving some 1500 ppm full dose feed; with our regiment many things tapered off (and these were instructions from the nutrient company, not our own, so not all nutrient companies are even encouraging a "flush.")

BUT, we also saw a savings of over $100/week just in nutrient costs alone for giving our finishing section of plants water versus nutrients. With a rotating/weekly harvest, that's over $400/month to skip the nutes the last week of growth. That pays the wages of a part-time employee for a week who could have done an epic amount of things that could help influence other areas of the grow/growth in the plants (pruning plants, skirting plants, etc.) Considering most grows run on bare-bone/skeleton crews, it's not something to sneeze at at the very least.

I moderate/admin for 7 different cannabis groups on Facebook (totaling over 60,000 members,) and the incredible shift of growers finally questioning, challenging, and ultimately calling "flush" bullshit, is staggering and overwhelming. Like, the lack of science (where it's otherwise been just blindly accepted or accepted as anecdotal proof) is being recognized, and more and more growers are skipping the flush (or at least, acknowledging what it's doing or not doing.)

Great info! Thanks! So, despite the noticeable weight gains, in a commercial scale, these wouldn't compensate the amount you'd be saving buy cutting nutes?

 

[WildBill]

Yes, I can see it as acceptable in a large op as a money saving protocol. But it's great to see/hear the myth finally dying. I mean, it even flys in the face of common sense, and as I've mentioned, even the science studies have failed to mention, WHERE do the remaining nutrients go?? To the buds! That plant will stavre it's self to death so that the buds survive in hopes of seed production! So the concept of removing nutrients from the buds is totally flawed. I'd like to see a total content test of buds flushed and unflushed. I'm willing to bet there is very little difference.

And what would it be different for organic? Why would you not flush organic but do so when using manufactured nutrients? There is NO difference. Once again, I'll ask, what is it you think your removing that isn't present in organics? Point me to the "nasty chemicals" that are supposedly present. Funny, NO ONE has ever answered that question, because they are merely repeating a myth started by some old "new ager hippy" who was enlightened by a 2 hour class in meditation...........

BTW the you is a general statement, not YOU SoH lol! You've seen the light!

Nothing prettier than a natural 'End of Life' fade from an organic grow. I think it's most pretty in an EARTHBOX.