Dr Who is right! ... Rx Green Technologies Report

[Dr. Who]

RX Green Technologies is a manufacturer of cannabis nutrients.
They are only showing one picture of 4 different fan leaves (with different stem thicknesses) and not the whole plant or plants.

Why is no one questioning the validity of their findings?
Does everyone have faith in their researchers and growers?

The reality is in the paper!
They are correct! They were correct before starting and will be correct LONG after we are all gone from this earth!

FLUSHING IS A MYTH!

You can "flush" NOTHING from a plant, any part of the plant!

 

[Kassiopeija]

ok, so flushing doesnt do anything... but still the point stands then why waste the fertilizer for the last weeks if just water will have the same results... but an obvious advantage...?

 

[Kassiopeija]

You can "flush" NOTHING from a plant, any part of the plant!

its true plants have some own ways in dealing with excess salts int hier substrates... Na mostly... like crystls excreeted from leaf openings.... but what do you think about a water cure, in RO water for several days... it's said itll reduce total weight by 20-30% and solving out greatly chlorophyl

 

[Dr. Who]

Interesting,so once its in its up to the plant to use it up.We can flush out whats left in the roots but not the flowers.

Nope, not the roots either. Not the way you think.
It would not "flush" out any of them. They would be transferred "up plant" till availability was depleted.

Any "FLUSH" slowly removes nutrients from the surrounding soil..

The "FADE" is not helping either.....The plant will take nutrition from one area of the plant to where it's needed.
In our case - right to the buds as the plant is now in a last ditch effort to reproduce.
Right to the buds, right to where your trying to get rid of them.... Sort of a self inflicted wound ,,eh?
This paper outlines all of what I've been saying for decades!

 

[Dr. Who]

its true plants have some own ways in dealing with excess salts int hier substrates... Na mostly... like crystls excreeted from leaf openings.... but what do you think about a water cure, in RO water for several days... it's said itll reduce total weight by 20-30% and solving out greatly chlorophyl

You are NOW on the right track!

CURE

A proper dry and a proper cure is how it's done...PERIOD!

I can guaranfuckingtee you that my 23.00 dollar a stick cigar was never "flushed"!
The material was harvested and then dried and cured. Some of the finest cigars have tobacco that has been cured for years!

Give your jars a chance. Cure for AT LEAST 4 weeks and everything above that - out to 8 weeks, is even better!

 

[JohnDee]

LMFAO

X was being sarcastic! He don't flush!

FLUSHING IS A MYTH!

glad to amuse you...don't know XT well enough to know what he does...or to pick up his sarcasm. I thought he was being humorous but still defending his action. Mostly my flushes are needed with long winded sativas in coco. Roots are just so bound up...salts accumulate. I flush them a couple times...but yes at the end too. I wouldn't do it if it didn't help.

And you guys are so gleeful about this study. Well the yield and quality was not decreased by a two week flush. So why not do it just to save on nutes? It clearly doesn't hurt anything.
JD

 

[Kushash]

Because these findings have been well known and scientifically proven for years. The only people that disagree are the brainwashed weed growers that still follow the old hippie lore about flushing. It’s biology not broscience guys.

I noticed this too, but I don't see how it would change the biological mechanisms.

Growers adamant about flushing have often been programed to believe theres some kind of intercellular heavy metal detoxification happening. Thanks, in part to nutrient companies pushing this propaganda for marketing purposes.

The reality is in the paper!
They are correct! They were correct before starting and will be correct LONG after we are all gone from this earth!

FLUSHING IS A MYTH!

You can "flush" NOTHING from a plant, any part of the plant!

I got three replies and none of the replies addressed my point which is why is everyone giving this study credit.

Each reply I got seems to be responding to me as though I am backing flushing and trying to convince me why flushing is not required.

I grow in soil and keep my plants and fan leaves healthy green to harvest and I don't flush, I do leach my soil of build up between being re amended if needed.

Seems like the results are being accepted because of confirmation bias.

 

[greg nr]

People can easily ignore real science and believe made up theories. And the belief seems real, so I'm not going to knock it.

Some examples perhaps?

• You can get into an actual punching fight with someone who believes the earth is flat if you insist it's round
• There are people quoting scientists who are saying that drinking bleach will protect you from the corona virus.
• Rush Limbaugh once said he deserved a medal for smoking on air because someone needed to stand up for smokers rights against those who fear the health risks.

So believe what you like. I use a super soil like mix so I rarely use nutes, and don't have a reason to flush. I harvest when the trich's tell me to, whether the leaves are green or brown.

Smoke em if you have em.

 

[bk78]

But my white ash bro

 

[Thundercat]

I got three replies and none of the replies addressed my point which is why is everyone giving this study credit.

Each reply I got seems to be responding to me as though I am backing flushing and trying to convince me why flushing is not required.

Like I DID state in my reply to you, I accept the results because I’ve already done research on botany and understand that existing science backs up the results of this new test. I also didn’t try to convince you of anything, I just answered your question.

 

[rkymtnman]

But my white ash bro

try a tanning bed, bro.

 

[bk78]

try a tanning bed, bro.

Ash bro not ass. Get your mind out the gutter.

 

[vostok]

RX Green Technologies is a manufacturer of cannabis nutrients.
They are only showing one picture of 4 different fan leaves (with different stem thicknesses) and not the whole plant or plants.

Why is no one questioning the validity of their findings?
Does everyone have faith in their researchers and growers?

...in that case these nute makers are shooting themselves in the foot?

(stupid is ...stupid does... then comments)

welcome to my ignore button

 

[Kushash]

I'm on ignore because I dared to question the validity of a study?
That I think it's odd that they only share four fan leaves?
That those fan leaves have different size stems and could have come from any part of the plant at any time is a stupid observation?
I know If I had grown for the study and the plants proved a point I'd share them proudly.
My feeling are hurt now and I best move on and let the intelligent conversation resume so that there will no longer be a flushing debate in the future.
Happy Growing!

 

[Tangerine_]

I got three replies and none of the replies addressed my point which is why is everyone giving this study credit.

Each reply I got seems to be responding to me as though I am backing flushing and trying to convince me why flushing is not required.

I grow in soil and keep my plants and fan leaves healthy green to harvest and I don't flush, I do leach my soil of build up between being re amended if needed.

Seems like the results are being accepted because of confirmation bias.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Sorry you took that way.
Just pointing out that there really isn't any need for a peer reviewed study because theres already a multitude of research written in text books.

Point being, I'm not surprised to see a nutrient company put out a prefatory article for their target audience -> growers...mostly small scale or hobby growers.
If they were actually selling something related to the study, that would be a different thing all together. I didn't pick up on that.

 

[Kushash]

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Sorry you took It that way.
Just pointing out that there really isn't any need for a peer reviewed study because theres already a multitude of research written in text books.

Point being, I'm not surprised to see a nutrient company put out a prefatory article for their target audience -> growers...mostly small scale or hobby growers.
If they were actually selling something related to the study, that would be a different thing all together. I didn't pick up on that.
[/QUOTE I’m not sure how this is being posted because I am busy and it may be incorrect plus I’m stoned.

Sounds good! I’m not criticizing anyone aside from thinking that I would not regard the study as legitimate from what I have seen . I do realize the quality of the members that I am questioning. I just don’t except that their explanations Were acceptable. For instance if the doctor gave a lecture and a student questioned the study and the doctor responded well it’s the right answer and it’s correct not to flush so the survey is acceptable is a responce that the class would agree with simply because it’s the right answer.

 

[Dr. Who]

I got three replies and none of the replies addressed my point which is why is everyone giving this study credit.

Each reply I got seems to be responding to me as though I am backing flushing and trying to convince me why flushing is not required.

I grow in soil and keep my plants and fan leaves healthy green to harvest and I don't flush, I do leach my soil of build up between being re amended if needed.

Seems like the results are being accepted because of confirmation bias.

What doubt? The paper is right! If you actually hit the link and look at the whole thing.. It's quite complete - for a brief.

Do you really expect them to supply you with every bit of research they did, in a brief?
Did you even check out the actual paper that was linked?
The leaves were an example.
Did you see the graph's in the paper (NO - only looked at the post)?

If you really want technicality. How about you call the company # and ask for the full research? Bug the right person and I'll bet you can get it.
BTW , that number is in the link....
After all, it was a piece to help those not educated in botany, on how a common practice is not doing what it's reputed to..

 

[Dr. Who]

glad to amuse you...don't know XT well enough to know what he does...or to pick up his sarcasm. I thought he was being humorous but still defending his action. Mostly my flushes are needed with long winded sativas in coco. Roots are just so bound up...salts accumulate. I flush them a couple times...but yes at the end too. I wouldn't do it if it didn't help.

And you guys are so gleeful about this study. Well the yield and quality was not decreased by a two week flush. So why not do it just to save on nutes? It clearly doesn't hurt anything.
JD

Take another look at the actual brief through the link given!

You'll find reduced quality by potency and even more so in terp losses.

V gave us an edited version.....Got to the point but, you need to read the whole thing!

 

[Kushash]

What doubt? The paper is right! If you actually hit the link and look at the whole thing.. It's quite complete - for a brief.

Do you really expect them to supply you with every bit of research they did, in a brief?
Did you even check out the actual paper that was linked?
The leaves were an example.
Did you see the graph's in the paper (NO - only looked at the post)?

If you really want technicality. How about you call the company # and ask for the full research? Bug the right person and I'll bet you can get it.
BTW , that number is in the link....
After all, it was a piece to help those not educated in botany, on how a common practice is not doing what it's reputed to..

They did the piece to help educate people? OK
I didn't consider that.
I'm out.
The OP has me on ignore and I'm not interested in the flush debate or this thread.

 

[Tangerine_]

Sounds good! I’m not criticizing anyone aside from thinking that I would not regard the study as legitimate from what I have seen . I do realize the quality of the members that I am questioning. I just don’t except that their explanations Were acceptable. For instance if the doctor gave a lecture and a student questioned the study and the doctor responded well it’s the right answer and it’s correct not to flush so the survey is acceptable is a responce that the class would agree with simply because it’s the right answer.

I get where you're comin from. But, if a students question was regarding something that was covered in previous course work, the doctors answer would be appropriate.
Just an example (and probably a very poor one bc I relate to human bio easier than plant bio)- During a lecture on arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy it wouldnt be appropriate to pose a question about the basic function of the ventricle. You'd be expected to already know how the heart functions from A&P 101, so the doctors answer of "well, its the right answer" would be appropriate.

This doesnt mean I believe every grower should already know plant functions. To the contrary. I just dont think we're going to see any kind of peer reviewed study on "flushing" because plant mechanisms have been covered in text books. It kinda makes sense that a nute company would do an easy to read report for their target audience. It draws more attention to their company.

I'm not articulating my point well...at all. To break down info or describe complex or technical assertions to someone unfamiliar with the topic is difficult because you need to find a way to convey the info in relatable terms without sounding like a preachy insufferable know-it-all.
Some folks are great at teaching and others...not so much.
Does this makes sense Kush? Probably not, huh.