@CannaDaTaBiz
For starters, give this a read through:
Of all the garden myths that exist, I hate this one the most! I'll do my best to drive nails in its coffin, once and for all! So first, I'm going to give you a little information, then, DO your homework! This can't be answered in a paragraph, you need to get some in depth information. I'm...
www.autoflower.org
We've literally been discussing the fallacies of flushing for nearly 6 years on this forum. Whether you agree, disagree, on the fence, etc, there's some great answers, links, and perspectives from all around the globe.
You seem to be pushing back on any opinions, advice, or guidance on this topic, yet you don't seem to have any real grasp of it yourself (and I say that respectfully.) If you're perceiving your fellow growers as hostile; I think they are feeling the same thing from you about your willingness to even discuss the topic. Just some friendly advice, approach tends to breed the response
For starters you're arguing two different types of flushing.
Flushing to fix problems with your medium is Animal A (which, again this is still the act of running water through the pot to leach out water soluble nutrients in the medium.)
Flushing at harvest because you think it's removing things from the plant is Animal B (which in reality, it's still leaching water soluble nutrients from the medium.)
As to growers overfeeding plants; that is a common issue, but again you'd point to "Animal A" to help correct that (and by correct, I mean you're trying to correct the issues in your medium, which in turns help correct things with the plant. You're not flushing anything out of the plant, burn damage is damage done.)
Many growers also start their nutrient regiments (especially if it's new to them or the grow) at 1/4 to 1/2 strength of normal recommendations. This helps you see how the plants react. Just like you wouldn't cram a t-bone steak down a babies throat, the nutrient requirements for seedlings and establishing plants is generally less than something already in the full swing.
Then follow the status quo that growers blindly accepted for decades with absolutely little science to substantiate the claims. If you're not open to the idea that harvest flushing may not in fact do the thing what growers generally accepted it as so to do, then why try to reinvent the wheel?
Flush with pH'd water , case closed (though not scientifically proven.)
It's literally that simple.
Again, I will refer you to agricultural leaching:
"In agricultural ecosystems, leaching is an important balance between preventing salt accumulation and removing nutrients from soil. Without proper amounts of water to leach these salts (known as the leaching fraction) from the upper soil horizons, the growth of the plants can be slightly to severely impacted. The impact depends on the salt tolerance of the plant and the type of salts accumulating in the soil."
By that same slippery slope logic, should we here not all reserve that same right to question someone who questions everything?
If that's the case then, then this was already answered. If you want the plants to use the nutrients already in the soil, you still pH the water because that's the OPTIMAL RANGE of solubility of those nutrients in the medium. You've cut the nutrients, now you're just giving the medium the pH'd water it needs for whatever is remaining to be uptaken. You're not flushing the plant, you're flushing the medium (Animal A,) which still requires moving a volume of water through the medium itself.
Boomsies! *mic drop*
Because many growers have been down this path before your existential questions about cultivation ever existed. Not everything that happens with plants is brand new territory, much of this is territory already traveled. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't still discuss and have conversations, that's why places like this forum exist. But hammering on the same note isn't much of a song.
Because there is no discernible difference. And science seems to back that more than not. I say this respectfully, have you even
looked at any of these flushing trials or rhetoric?
Again, there is very little science that backs this up. Can YOU explain this?
The idea behind crop steering the plants isn't that you just stress it with anything. It's the idea that you intentionally introduce specific types of stress at specific times in order to try to produce a desired response.
If any/all stress made the plants more potent, then all new growers on the planet would have the most fuego weed in existence (as they overfeed their plants and improperly pH their water wink wink lol.)