- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Messages
- 2,136
- Reputation
- 1,061
- Reaction score
- 8,534
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- Mango Smile
Yep, we're going to follow the science! C'mon, man!Science wins, one grower at a time!
Yep, we're going to follow the science! C'mon, man!Science wins, one grower at a time!
Nice one!Yep, we're going to follow the science! C'mon, man!
A non flusher here :smoking:
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.)
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.)
Nothing prettier than a natural 'End of Life' fade from an organic grow. I think it's most pretty in an EARTHBOX.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!