New flushing study

Star Dog

Star Dog

Well-Known Member
What if your plants looked like shit, we've seen and done plants with burnt leafs that look like like shit at the end of flowering
Do you flush that?

@bk78...good to see your back.
 
dbz

dbz

Well-Known Member
Star Dog said:
What if your plants looked like shit, we've seen and done plants with burnt leafs that look like like shit at the end of flowering
Do you flush that?

@bk78...good to see your back.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't unless you believe the way they look is due to lockout from salt buildups and you want to keep them going a couple more weeks. Imo.
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Note this study has the focus on weight. At the expense of taste or overall quality. The retail experience in Alaska sucks for the most part. More losers than stars. Bud is drier than a popcorn fart and tasteless. There are exceptions but they’re rare. No other domestic crop is flushed. Plain water at the very end is one thing because of retained nutes in the medium. But still unnecessary for quality. This study shows it.
 
F

F1refly18

Active Member
TLDR the rx grene 'study' does not have a correct experimental setup


Hey guys!

IMO this study does not give any information to help the debate on flushing VS not flushing.

For those that want actual useful info check Jeremy from buildasoil address this topic in his YouTube series.

For those of you that refer to claims in the rx green 'study' :
I invite you to please read the study with a critical mind.

I'm ready to criticize every aspect of this 'study', if you think they did anything in an acceptable way (with respect to research or even just trying to find out the impact of flushing) then please post that claim and I will explain to you why it is incorrect.

To be very clear: in this post I am not pro or anti flushing, I just want to bring to everyone's attention that this rx green 'study' is badly conducted and the results are meaningless (literally they can't be used) and I am shocked that no one in this thread mentions this - it even seems like some of you read it and back it up which makes me pretty confused.

Asides from the lack of info about their experimental setup, the first big red flag is apparent when looking at the results:
- for flower samples in a single group the reviews on quality, smoothness while smoking and taste are literally all over the place. Just imagine for a single sample that some judges say it is 'bad' and others say it is 'great', then what is going on? Are the judges very bad at judging? Or were they not taught how to use the rubric? Also just simply the fact that every sample had at least 1 judge saying it was 'bad' makes you question if they even know how to grow (which should be something they document in the experimental setup, I can't find any info at all).

Research on flushing can't be done yet because there are so many thing that need to be researched first
 
Last edited:
Star Dog

Star Dog

Well-Known Member
F1refly18 said:
TLDR the rx grene 'study' does not have a correct experimental setup


Hey guys!

IMO this study does not give any information to help the debate on flushing VS not flushing.

For those that want actual useful info check Jeremy from buildasoil address this topic in his YouTube series.

For those of you that refer to claims in the rx green 'study' :
I invite you to please read the study with a critical mind.

I'm ready to criticize every aspect of this 'study', if you think they did anything in an acceptable way (with respect to research or even just trying to find out the impact of flushing) they please post that claim and I will explain to you why it is incorrect.

To be very clear: in this post I am not pro or a it flushing, I just want to bring to everyone's attention that this rx green 'study' is badly conducted and the results are meaningless (literally they can't be used) and I am shocked that no one Iin this thread mentions this - it even seems like some of you read it and back it up which makes me pretty confused.

Asides from the lack of info about their experimental setup, the first big red flag is apparent when looking at the results:
- for flower samples in a single group the reviews on quality, smoothness while smoking and taste are literally all over the place. Just imagine for a single sample that some judges say it is 'bad' and others say it is 'great', then what is going on? Are the judges very bad at judging? Or were they not taught how to use the rubric? Also just simply the fact that every sample had at least 1 judge saying it was 'bad' makes you question if they even know how to grow (which should be something they document in the experimental setup, I can't find any info at all).

Research on flushing can't be done yet because there are so many thing that need to be researched first
Click to expand...
I've mentioned it's a joke but it appears to be set in stone now, that link gets banded about the forum like it's the word of God.
 
twentyeight.threefive

twentyeight.threefive

Well-Known Member
F1refly18 said:
TLDR the rx grene 'study' does not have a correct experimental setup


Hey guys!

IMO this study does not give any information to help the debate on flushing VS not flushing.

For those that want actual useful info check Jeremy from buildasoil address this topic in his YouTube series.

For those of you that refer to claims in the rx green 'study' :
I invite you to please read the study with a critical mind.

I'm ready to criticize every aspect of this 'study', if you think they did anything in an acceptable way (with respect to research or even just trying to find out the impact of flushing) then please post that claim and I will explain to you why it is incorrect.

To be very clear: in this post I am not pro or anti flushing, I just want to bring to everyone's attention that this rx green 'study' is badly conducted and the results are meaningless (literally they can't be used) and I am shocked that no one in this thread mentions this - it even seems like some of you read it and back it up which makes me pretty confused.

Asides from the lack of info about their experimental setup, the first big red flag is apparent when looking at the results:
- for flower samples in a single group the reviews on quality, smoothness while smoking and taste are literally all over the place. Just imagine for a single sample that some judges say it is 'bad' and others say it is 'great', then what is going on? Are the judges very bad at judging? Or were they not taught how to use the rubric? Also just simply the fact that every sample had at least 1 judge saying it was 'bad' makes you question if they even know how to grow (which should be something they document in the experimental setup, I can't find any info at all).

Research on flushing can't be done yet because there are so many thing that need to be researched first
Click to expand...
If you’re looking for a real scientific study that proves flushing works then check this link out!

Last Week or Two Flowering, Flush??

So how can I make sure I get older genetics? I don’t believe the white rhino seeds on the market these days are the real deal, Acapulco gold hasn’t been heard of in London for years. Any advice? By talking to seed companies and seed brokers. Anyone who wont answer or wont give a straight...
rollitup.org
 
Star Dog

Star Dog

Well-Known Member
GenericEnigma said:
So you start flushing two weeks in advance of harvest only to discover you need a third week before it's ripe. After that third week, you realize it could go a fourth.
Click to expand...
That's why you wait to until it's ready to chop before giving it water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top