should i flush...

[tellno1]

still dont see what the problem is ..... he says this and he says that ..you quote this, they quote that ... it basically comes down to style of growing .. try it both ways and see if there is any difference .. debate doesnt help the guy .. i favor flushing and another bro doesnt .. no problem just different styles .. you cant get informed decisions with all the bickering lol

happy growin

 

[k0ijn]

still dont see what the problem is ..... he says this and he says that ..you quote this, they quote that ... it basically comes down to style of growing .. try it both ways and see if there is any difference .. debate doesnt help the guy .. i favor flushing and another bro doesnt .. no problem just different styles .. you cant get informed decisions with all the bickering lol

happy growin

No it doesn't come down to style of growing.
It comes down to right information and wrong information.

And like everything else it comes down to the science of it.

Science is why you use nutrients, otherwise you would just pray for the plants to grow.
Science is why you use the temperatures and RH levels you do, otherwise you'd just be guessing.
Science is why you use the specific bulbs you do (wether that be HPS, MH or whatever), the spectrums of the bulb do affect how your plants grow.

Why is science excluded from the flushing part?



You guys amaze me sometimes with you reasoning 'skills'.

 

[wbd]

You (and everyone else in favour of flushing) claim that flushing improves; taste, odour etc.
Saying I don't believe in flushing without any proof of it working is not a claim. I don't see how you can't understand that fact.

Again, my response with claiming was aimed at YOU and everyone else saying flushing works. If you say it works and want me and other experienced growers to believe it, PROVE it ffs.

Why are you trying to twist it around and turn the burden of proof over on the ones saying they don't believe.
You are acting like religious fanatics act; "nanana you cannot prove god doesn't exist, so he does exist".
Such a statement is ad hominem, it's a logical fallacy and you cannot seem to grasp this.

Jorge Cervantes has been proven wrong a few times and he has even admitted it. If you chose to believe him that's your prerogative, doesn't make it less wrong though..

Again, you seem to think the burden of proof lies with those not claiming.

YOU and everyone who believes flushing works and say it works must provide the proof of your claims.
I am not claiming anything, I am simply saying I don't believe in flushing because it has not been proven to work.






Neither of those have anything to do with experience level.
But it's easy to read peoples post and behavior and determine their experience level..

The only claim I ever made is that you were stating an opinion. I still think you must be reading some other thread.

If you read above, you'll see that I believe in flushing for error correction as well as periodic cleansing of salts from the growing medium. I do not flush at the end of my grows for taste or smoke, but that is a choice I make based on my own experiences and the opinions of others.

I really do think you're reading some other thread and then replying here, because you clearly DID claim that flushing had no advantages except for error correction. You did not state it as belief or opinion as you are now coming around to. That's the statement I was replying to, not this backpedaling you are doing now. Thank you for finally admitting that your choice to not flush is based on a belief you have and not global end-all fact. This very thread illustrates that there is still much debate on the matter, so don't be so quick to close the book on the matter and say I WIN, okay?

If you want to argue with me, fine, but at least base your arguments on what was actually said in this thread. It's all right above if you need to reference it.

 

[wbd]

still dont see what the problem is ..... he says this and he says that ..you quote this, they quote that ... it basically comes down to style of growing .. try it both ways and see if there is any difference .. debate doesnt help the guy .. i favor flushing and another bro doesnt .. no problem just different styles .. you cant get informed decisions with all the bickering lol

happy growin

Exactly, to flush at the end or not -- it's a choice we all make. Even experienced growers are split down the middle on the matter.

Let's not be so quick to tell newbies that it's decided one way or another, because it most certainly is still up for debate!

 

[wbd]

No it doesn't come down to style of growing.
It comes down to right information and wrong information.

And like everything else it comes down to the science of it.

Science is why you use nutrients, otherwise you would just pray for the plants to grow.
Science is why you use the temperatures and RH levels you do, otherwise you'd just be guessing.
Science is why you use the specific bulbs you do (wether that be HPS, MH or whatever), the spectrums of the bulb do affect how your plants grow.

Why is science excluded from the flushing part?



You guys amaze me sometimes with you reasoning 'skills'.

And taste will always be a matter of taste. Isn't that a big part of what the harvest flush is all about?? Taste?

 

[tellno1]

No it doesn't come down to style of growing.
It comes down to right information and wrong information.

And like everything else it comes down to the science of it.

Science is why you use nutrients, otherwise you would just pray for the plants to grow.
Science is why you use the temperatures and RH levels you do, otherwise you'd just be guessing.
Science is why you use the specific bulbs you do (wether that be HPS, MH or whatever), the spectrums of the bulb do affect how your plants grow.

Why is science excluded from the flushing part?



You guys amaze me sometimes with you reasoning 'skills'.

well i donno from what your saying all the nute companys are wrong when they say flush at certain times .. they must not know what you know gosh maybe someone could clue them in too .. but alas i will flush like ive always done for the last 20 years with no harmful effect to my plants ..

happy growin

 

[k0ijn]

The only claim I ever made is that you were stating an opinion. I still think you must be reading some other thread.

If you read above, you'll see that I believe in flushing for error correction as well as periodic cleansing of salts from the growing medium. I do not flush at the end of my grows for taste or smoke, but that is a choice I make based on my own experiences and the opinions of others.

I really do think you're reading some other thread and then replying here, because you clearly DID claim that flushing had no advantages except for error correction. You did not state it as belief or opinion as you are now coming around to. That's the statement I was replying to, not this backpedaling you are doing now. Thank you for finally admitting that your choice to not flush is based on a belief you have and not global end-all fact. This very thread illustrates that there is still much debate on the matter, so don't be so quick to close the book on the matter and say I WIN, okay?

If you want to argue with me, fine, but at least base your arguments on what was actually said in this thread. It's all right above if you need to reference it.

What is it you don't understand?
Saying that flushing works or that you think it works and use it IS A CLAIM.

I'm just repeating myself because you clearly don't grasp what that means.
Do you have no idea how scientific research works?

You can't just say something works without any proof of it working.


I am not reading another thread..

If you say that you think flushing works that is a claim and you must prove it.
Saying it doesn't work without proof (like I am saying), isn't.

I am not coming around to anything, I'm standing by my statement.

"There is no real advantage to flushing (other than when you have made an error and need to correct it)".

That is a fact. Flushing has not been proved, therefore everyone who believe it does work and spread word around as if it does work must prove it to work or be labeled as spreading false information.

I am not backpedaling, you are completely misunderstanding and disregarding what has been said here.
If you say something works and you can't prove it, don't expect reasoning and logical people to just accept it because you said it.
This is my underlying point.

People like you are saying flushing works, without any proof, are wrong.

I do not flush at the end of my grows for taste or smoke, but that is a choice I make based on my own experiences and the opinions of others.

You say you do not flush, yet you say in the same sentence you do..
And still you can show no proof of it working other than your own experience.

Well I'm sorry but that is just not good enough to prove anything.


I could just as well say that by my own experience I can fly.
I cannot prove I can fly, but my own experience and the opinion of a few others means it's true.
And there is nothing you can say to refute that, because apparently science doesn't matter to you.

That right there is to show you how mental you sound.
Again I'll have to go back to the religious fanatics claiming everything left and right without any proof.

 

[wbd]

What is it you don't understand?
Saying that flushing works or that you think it works and use it IS A CLAIM.

Agreed. But I never said that.

I'm just repeating myself because you clearly don't grasp what that means.
Do you have no idea how scientific research works?

Sure I do, no need to be condescending.

You can't just say something works without any proof of it working.

Agreed. Or that something doesn't work, for that matter.

I am not reading another thread..

I happen to believe that you still are.

If you say that you think flushing works that is a claim and you must prove it.

Agreed, yet I never said anything of the sorts. I've made no claims about flushing either way, only what I personally choose to do.

Saying it doesn't work without proof (like I am saying), isn't.

LOL, no. Saying flushing works, or it doesn't work -- those are both claims just the same. Are you serious man?

"There is no real advantage to flushing (other than when you have made an error and need to correct it)".

That is a fact. Flushing has not been proved, therefore everyone who believe it does work and spread word around as if it does work must prove it to work or be labeled as spreading false information.

You are 100% wrong. Show me where it has been proven that flushing does not prevent salt buildup in growing mediums. Show me where it has been PROVEN that flushing has no positive effect on quality of product?

Yes I know many have their OPINIONS... show me the PROOF.

I am not backpedaling, you are completely misunderstanding and disregarding what has been said here.
If you say something works and you can't prove it, don't expect reasoning and logical people to just accept it because you said it.
This is my underlying point.

I didn't say flushing works. Where did I say that? Be specific.

People like you are saying flushing works, without any proof, are wrong.

Again, what thread are you reading? I said no such thing.

You say you do not flush, yet you say in the same sentence you do..
And still you can show no proof of it working other than your own experience.

What?? You do realize flushing has several purposes right? I know you do, but cmon man...

I flush for:
- corrective measure
- periodic cleansing of medium of excess salts

I do not flush for:
- taste & smoke

How can I be any clearer about that?

Well I'm sorry but that is just not good enough to prove anything.

???

I could just as well say that by my own experience I can fly.
I cannot prove I can fly, but my own experience and the opinion of a few others means it's true.
And there is nothing you can say to refute that, because apparently science doesn't matter to you.

wtf? where do i reject science?

That right there is to show you how mental you sound.

It's a shame you had to resort to personal attacks. We were doing OK I thought.

Again I'll have to go back to the religious fanatics claiming everything left and right without any proof.

Well at least you finally acknowledge the similarities between belief in God, and belief in flushing! Both personal preferences, maybe even a matter of faith!

 

[Izoc666]

alrighty im blazing the fat joint up now....big sighing...feel better now...i think its reef time for y all too

since the OP who created this thread, seems not interested to know about our opioions....

perhaps we can go to somewhere ? thanks.

666

 

[Harrekin]

Personal preference has nothing to do with it, if you do a pre harvest flush you're simply doing it wrong.

If its your personal preference to do something wrong thats cool, but don't misinform others.

Flushing is bullshit. Clearing up an excess of nutes from grower error by flooding the medium is called "leeching", and it can only rinse away nutrients in the rootzone, it cannot draw anything out of the plants.

And for the record, most nutrient companies tell you to flush do you buy their flushing solution...and who follows a nutrient schedule anyways, all the instructions you need is how much per L/gal.

Flushing doesn't work, stop saying it does cos you're wrong!

 

[Harrekin]

The funniest one is people who flush with molasses btw.

Why feed your soil microbes but not give any nutes to the plant? Cos that's all molasses is, it's a way to feed soil microbiology.

The microbiology is pointless if you: don't use organic nutes or if you don't feed the plant, because it's the microbes that break up organic nutes to usable nutrient ions for the plant.

It sweetens your buds? What a crock.

 

[SunnyD]

hey man, do what u want. there's a million ways to get to the finish. everyone has their own way and there's a bunch of us who've done both and realized the end product is altered by the last step ppl usually skimp on and that's drying and curing. instead of flushing y dont u understand what ur plant needs and when and ease up on nutes. They dont need that much to live, survive, or flourish. Instead of flushing at week 6 on a 8 weeker and stunting the plant at the most important time of its life, u could start reducing nutes. the reason ed and jorge does it is because they teach u to push u plants to the limit with ferts, but most strains dont flourish with ppms that high. I've done some that would piss on ur nuted up babies with resin..

 

[k0ijn]

Personal preference has nothing to do with it, if you do a pre harvest flush you're simply doing it wrong.

If its your personal preference to do something wrong thats cool, but don't misinform others.

Flushing is bullshit. Clearing up an excess of nutes from grower error by flooding the medium is called "leeching", and it can only rinse away nutrients in the rootzone, it cannot draw anything out of the plants.

And for the record, most nutrient companies tell you to flush do you buy their flushing solution...and who follows a nutrient schedule anyways, all the instructions you need is how much per L/gal.

Flushing doesn't work, stop saying it does cos you're wrong!

I couldn't agree more.

 

[k0ijn]

Agreed. But I never said that.

a quality of cannabis historically said to be significantly improved via flushing (why you skipped over taste and smoke in your list of benefits that don't exist seems odd considering taste and smoke are the most common reasons to do so).

That is what you said.
I don't "believe" the list of benefits, incl. taste, odour and harsness improvement.

Agreed, yet I never said anything of the sorts. I've made no claims about flushing either way, only what I personally choose to do.

What did you mean by list of benefits then?

LOL, no. Saying flushing works, or it doesn't work -- those are both claims just the same. Are you serious man?

Again you fail to grasp my meaning.
They are both claims in the literal sense of the word but not in the burden of proof understanding.
It's like in a court of law, the burden of proof is very specific and it follows guidelines, just as it does in the scientific world and in reasoning and logic.

When you state you adhere to the 'belief' that flushing works, maybe you only ment for rinsing nutrients although you also mentioned taste and smoke, you must be able to prove your 'theory' and explain it before you go spreading it around.

I don't use flushing, I have used leeching (which is what I assume you mean by rinsing nutrients, as flushing isn't technically the same thing in the cannabis growing community).

Now because I don't use it and I don't see any proof of it working, I will continue to engage people who believe to make them stop spreading false information.

Maybe I should have written a post like this in my first comment, but I post in a lot of topics in H&C and usually I explain myself very thoroughly, however sometimes I do just stick a oneliner, with a 'simple answer:'.

You are 100% wrong. Show me where it has been proven that flushing does not prevent salt buildup in growing mediums. Show me where it has been PROVEN that flushing has no positive effect on quality of product?

I never said it didn't. Leeching can cure a salt buildup.
The fact that flushing has not been scientifically proven to improve taste, smoke, odour etc. is what shows you shouldn't believe in it.
The fact that it can't be proven that there isn't a flying teapot orbiting the sun doesn't mean it's there..

Yes I know many have their OPINIONS... show me the PROOF.

Again, the burden of proof does not lie with me. It lies with anyone saying anything to the sort of: "flushing can improve taste, smoke, odour etc. etc.".

I didn't say flushing works. Where did I say that? Be specific.

Really? You didn't say you use flushing and that it's historical that flushing improves the quality of cannabis?

I flush for:
- corrective measure
- periodic cleansing of medium of excess salts

I do not flush for:
- taste & smoke

Maybe we do agree on something after all then, however I still think you were mistaken saying: "a quality of cannabis historically said to be significantly improved via flushing".

wtf? where do i reject science?

When you say "a quality of cannabis historically said to be significantly improved via flushing".
I don't think that is true. I don't think it's historical nor factual.

Well at least you finally acknowledge the similarities between belief in God, and belief in flushing! Both personal preferences, maybe even a matter of faith

Finally? I stated right out that:

You are acting like religious fanatics act; "nanana you cannot prove god doesn't exist, so he does exist".
Such a statement is ad hominem, it's a logical fallacy and you cannot seem to grasp this.

I ment what I said there. Faith has no place in growing Cannabis, it's botany & biology at it's finest.
Fuchs, Brunfels & Bock would be proud of us all

 

[wbd]

k0ijn, the quote you are referring to:

"a quality of cannabis historically said to be significantly improved via flushing (why you skipped over taste and smoke in your list of benefits that don't exist seems odd considering taste and smoke are the most common reasons to do so)."

Notice the bold, underlined text: that is the key to that statement and why I'm not personally claiming anything here. I'm simply stating what others have written and repeated many times over on the subject of flushing.

Clearly whether what has been said/written about flushing historically has any merit to it is heavily debated these days.

That's all I'm sayin'.

 

[k0ijn]

k0ijn, the quote you are referring to:

"a quality of cannabis historically said to be significantly improved via flushing (why you skipped over taste and smoke in your list of benefits that don't exist seems odd considering taste and smoke are the most common reasons to do so)."

Notice the bold, underlined text: that is the key to that statement and why I'm not personally claiming anything here. I'm simply stating what others have written and repeated many times over on the subject of flushing.

Clearly whether what has been said/written about flushing historically has any merit to it is heavily debated these days.

That's all I'm sayin'.

Ofc I read said to be, that's the part I'm disagreeing with. I think the theory has been contested since it was thought of.
It's not historically agreeable imo.

I read it (and it seems other people did as well) as you supporting this theory.

 

[PeyoteReligion]

Lol this debate again. I suggest with one plant you flush with the other you do not. This way you can decide for yourself and not get caught up in all this melarky arguments about who's right or wrong. Do both and make the decision yourself. Both will be smokeable.

 

[Izoc666]

no reef time , peeps ?

666

 

[infoseek]

What's your crop worth?
Just flush no mater if you "THINK" it is needed or not.
Most people use too many nutes and its good to give the plant time to break it all down out of its system and it will not hurt at all to flush but you could be lighting a sparkler if you don't. JUST FLUSH!

 

[Sunbiz1]

My vote is flush, I alaways flush for a week, I dont care what anyone says, I flush. It deffinately affects.the flavor. Flush your plants.

Do me a favor, I need to flush my in-ground guerrilla grows from now on. Could you please find me a city water truck and a front-end loader to accomplish this?.

Thanks!