To Flush or not to Flush

I’ve addressed this topic numerous times over the last couple of years.

For the most part, what @Donaldj said is correct.

Happy growing,

MacG

3 Likes

This is not entirely correct.

Properly “flushed” and cured weed will burn easily and not burn out, and will have the resulting white ash, even at the proper stored high humidity of around 65%.

~MacG

5 Likes

For the most part the chemicals they add to tobacco are meant to make it burn faster and more evenly I am not saying people need to rinse soil if there is no huge build up simply that changing to straight ph’d water for last week or 2 can be helpful.

1 Like

Maybe I should have been more clear. I agree with you up to a point. I’ve always understood 62% was the proper RH to cure and store cannabis in. Where we differ is the flushing.

My main point to this thead is the term “flushing” being defined by the growing community as an act to clean out the chemical, harsh taste to bud, that’s being smoked. In fact, that is NOT the definition. As aforementioned, “flushing” is the cleansing of soil, and is completely separate for the act of starving the plant.

“Starving your plant” for the clean, smooth, smoke is a different topic. I don’t mind debating it as I don’t agree with it either, but its not “Flushing”, even though the flushing technique is used to accomplish doing it.

2 Likes

Be as it may, cigarettes contain:
Acetone – found in nail polish remover
Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye
Ammonia – a common household cleaner
Arsenic – used in rat poison
Benzene – found in rubber cement
Butane – used in lighter fluid
Cadmium – active component in battery acid
Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes
Formaldehyde – embalming fluid
Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid
Lead – used in batteries
Naphthalene – an ingredient in mothballs
Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel
Nicotine – used as insecticide
Tar – material for paving roads
Toluene - used to manufacture paint

Depending on preference and other factors, the proper RH for curing can be as low as about 55%, to as high as 65%.

I did say…[quote=“MacGyverStoner, post:16, topic:6432”]
stored high humidity of around 65%
[/quote]

I also did say the term is a misnomer, and not only that, I also said an actual flush is not necessarily needed…

and…

And…

And yes, the term originated with flushing soil for [quote=“MacGyverStoner, post:20, topic:6432”]
extreme pH problems, nutrient mineral salt toxicity build ups, and general over fertilization.
[/quote]

~MacG

5 Likes

Although I don’t agree with starving you plants, ever, I want to thank you from clearing it up on where you stand on the issue. Up to this point, I haven’t has time to read all those threads yet. Again, thanks for your input.

Starving the plant is a common used term that isn’t entirely accurate either.
.
When you do read my comments in those threads, you will notice I describe the process, and it is more a reduction of nutrients available to the plant.

This “starving” is not really starving at all, if the plant is watered only without nutrients for maybe up to two weeks in soil, the plant is still feeding off what is available in the soil and in its leaves.

I also do mention the length of this low or no nutrients period is entirely dependent on how the plant is fed up to near the end of the grow, and for example, with the Lucas formula, Lucas does not recommend an actual flush at all. This where the “art” comes in and the skill of reading your plants to know when to stop giving added nutrients to the plant.

This “pH water only and no nutrients” might be as short as a day in a well tuned and maintained DWC system.

Happy growing,

MacG

4 Likes

I agree completely with this, and I believe the problem is the ignorance of feeding, and understanding the metabolism and uptake of the nutrient in the plant.

Why try to fix a problem that you create when it’s so much easier to avoid having a problem in the first place.

5 Likes

…I would still like to see real science behind withholding levels of nutrients that benefit taste.

4 Likes

I’m hoping just the opposite…

I’m hoping some new growers actually do a comparison and give us their opinions, not more science

3 Likes

I believe @latewood has some of that info about how the nutrients stored in the leaves, and by extension – elsewhere where chlorophyll is also produced and stored, and how this does indeed feed the plant for quite sometime. Much of the harshness comes from the chlorophyll itself, and this is just another way of reducing chlorophyll and nutrient salts from the plant’s tissues.

Hopefully he’ll have some time to stop bye and provide some of that information.

~MacG

3 Likes

Actually this has been pretty much proven, in side by side grows.

It is a very common practice for almost every grower that has won cannabis cups around the world.

@Paranorman, “science” is just a way to test and measure things in such a way the data can be collected and compared.

Defined: Science – is a systematic method that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

This is also sometimes called “the scientific method”.

More growers experimenting and comparing is a somewhat “scientific” process and could be described as “science” or certainly a part of the scientific method.

~MacG

3 Likes

I’d love see any information on this, yes please @latewood, please join this conversation.

I have some information, but it does not agree with cutting nutrient strength. The information I have applies to chlorophyll being the main culprit of harsh smoke. From what I’ve read, interfering with the plants natural metabolism (i.e. under feeding), will infact start the breakdown process of chlorophyll, and infact, start the curing process essentially on the plant, however, chlorophyll would naturally break down even if you wait out those last two weeks, with proper harvesting and time.

Its almost like, sacrificing yield quantities for harvest speed.

2 Likes

Exactly, this is what I have said, it is actually part of the curing process.

If done at the right time, no yield will be sacrificed. A shorter “traditional curing” can be done, maintaining more of the lighter terpene flavors that would be lost with a more aggressive curing process.

~MacG

3 Likes

In my experience, the last two weeks are critical for density. :confounded:

3 Likes

Don’t forget, when using the general term “soil”, this can be any numerous mixes of various components that can have varying degrees of holding on to nutrients, as well as components that can continue to break down into available nutrients for the plant.

Again, the way you grow it will have a significant impact on how much or if you’d need to do any “flushing” at all.

For some, they might need two weeks, many others will need much less, maybe a week or less.

It should also be mentioned that this general use of the term “flushing at two weeks before harvest”, this doesn’t mean you flush everyday for the following two weeks.

Yes there is a lot of confusion out there because of information passed around in layman circles without a complete understanding of what is actually being done and/or how to do it.

I agree:[quote=“Dumme, post:23, topic:6432”]
Why try to fix a problem that you create when it’s so much easier to avoid having a problem in the first place.
[/quote]

But cash croppers tend to always max out their nutrients to get as much volume as possible.

I also agree, I prefer quality over quantity, but when done right, there is no reason you can’t have both.

I do use only pH’ed water in my DWC the last day, or maybe as much as 3 days of the grow.

This is pretty much when the plant is entirely done, even with a proper amount of nutrients, much of the plant will already be showing signs of senescence, this is certainly when you want to start the curing process.

~MacG

2 Likes

You mix your own nutrients? As in make your own solution?

Yes sir, I do indeed

2 Likes

That’s hard core bro! I have minor in chemistry, and wouldn’t even attempt it.

1 Like