Well, as it seems to be “trending topic” lately 
, I am curious to find out the real followers these two options have. In case you do flush I would appreciate if you specify when, how do you know it and for how long. Thanks for your input … 
0 voters
I’ll make a start. I don’t but i used too as how I was taught but now I don’t mind waiting a few extra weeks curing time for the chlorophyll to dissipate. I do take a lot more time and care when trimming though so… 
I do flush, not set amount of days but longest I’ve flushed for is 10 days but with what @Esrgood4u said and @anon58740919 told me the same thing and I cure for around 3-4 weeks anyway so sounds like I need showing da whey 
If your willing to cure longer feeding till the end gives increased yield. It’s the final weeks that they swell the most so… This is my “theory” though. It could well be wrong.
What he said. Plus I read somewhere that terpene development/resin production is fuelled by mag and sulfur towards harvest. So I went with that using dragon force (which I got as a freebie first time and was that impressed I bought more) there are cheaper ways to get the same results if you’re willing to work out ratios etc. I was not.
Also helps with the smell mate. The sulphur promotes more odor
I’m gonna invest in some dragon force myself hopefully for the end of this grow if I’ve got the cash spare.
Who’s counting these 20 characters. Wouldn’t let me just post that
Stink development for us further north that’s less educated 
Not a lot of range with only two options, so I selected “I Do Flush” even though I don’t, really.
I feed at 1/4 strength for a week to ten days before harvest, but I’m not at all convinced there’s any good reason to do even that. I’ve skipped it in the past and have not seen any strong evidence that it affected the end product in any way that I care about.
In fifteen years of growing I’ve never seen anyone put forth a really compelling argument for flushing. In several dozens of threads where the topic is discussed online, you typically see a few variations on the same tired arguments presented with the user’s attempt at sounding scientific without any actual objective facts to back them up, and they always fall short in my opinion.
My favorite is the old fallback position that anyone with a sensitive palate can tell the difference 100% of the time, without any reference to even a hint at robust testing methodology. If there is not a single documented instance of people who can differentiate between clones of the same plant grown in literally the same environment, with the only variable being whether the plants were flushed or not, and both samples being sufficiently cured, then it’s a pretty-sounding argument but not particularly compelling.
I have tried flushing and not flushing many times over the years, and personally see no particular benefit to flushing. I cure 100% of my product for what must seem to commercial growers to be an absurdly long amount of time, and I can tell you that it smokes super smooth, leaves a bright white ash, and tastes great. In a world where I have yet to see any fact-based evidence in support of flushing, that’s good enough for me.
Edited to add - I don’t doubt that flushing does something, and I am willing to concede that it is remotely possible that it may even do everything its proponents claim, but even if that’s the case it would appear to be a quality bar that’s essentially meaningless and not worth pursuing.
The third one would be “What is flushing?” lol, now seriously, what other options do you miss?
Yeah, it’s an intractable problem inherent in the nature of polls that there’s often no way to include an option that is adequately specific for every respondent, which is why I chose the “pick an answer and explain below” option
I wanted to flush, did not really know when the right time was. I just did at some point but restarted feeding after a few days 
Good choice, she needed ~3.5 more weeks in the end.
Probably not going to do it again. I’m using organic fertilizer if that matters.
I reduce feed strength in the last couple of weeks so i don’t have to flush 
I feed my soil the same regardless of whether there are plants in it or not… flushing is for toilets 
I typically feed up to the point they are about two or three days away then flush hard for the last 3-4 days. First flush I check ppm of water going in and then watch the ppm as it comes out of the pot or table at which point I stop when I see the ppm stop dropping drastically from where it started insuring all excess is cleared from root zone in last few days. I notice a difference if I dont and it’s good to rinse the excess out of your soil anyways esp if you re use your soil which I beleive alot if people including myself do
the few scientific studies i’ve seen on the subject seemed to inconclusively indicate flushing is stoner science iirc … what i don’t understand is how the leaf color affects the taste of the flowers … maybe if you flush and starve the plant until the buds are yellow i could see it being compelling, but i don’t think i’d want to smoke those buds
that said, ive also flushed and not flushed different plants from the same grows but they were all different strains so basically a useless experiment lmao
+1
+1
Not much else to add.
I’ve seen and tasted a difference in plants of the same strain when flushed vs not. The buds dont have to change color for the nutrient reserves to be burnt off. It’s just a sighn that the plant is cannabilzing itself and starting the process of death. Its mainly a issue in hydroponics and when using synthetic nutrients. It’s not stoner science as there are valid arguments for both sides of the debate and little to no evidence to prove either one as correct. If you grow hydro and dont flush try leaving one plant for a extra 3-4 days and flushing that one to compare. If you dont see or notice a benefit then you have your answer. What works for one person may not work the best for the other. The best way to grow is to do what gives you the best results with your enviroment and to allows experiment a little to try and further improve.
While I am in the ‘no flush’ camp, the study I have seen found no difference in yield between flushed and unflushed. In fact, they found no differences at all.
My opinion is that you can flush if you like, or not flush if you like, it does not matter as long as you cure. The harsh taste is from chlorophyll and you can reduce this either when the plant is alive, or after you cut it. I prefer the term ‘live curing’ as it more accurately reflects the actual process that occurs.
For people who want to smoke their cannabis as soon as it is dry, live curing is essential because it is essential to cure your cannabis at some point. If you are patient, dry curing IMO gives a better final product.
People who understand the life cycle of a cannabis plant know that it automatically stops taking in food during senescence so reducing the nutrient strength to stop the plant taking up nutrients is pointless because it is a process that will happen anyway.
People who understand how the root functions know that you cannot pull nutrients the ‘wrong way’ so it is simply not possible to leach nutrients from the plant by changing the strength of the solution at the root surface. Sure you clean your medium, but you do not remove nutrients from the plant via the roots.
People who understand curing, the processes that occur, why it is important, and the effects it has on the final product know that you can get smooth smoking cannabis without a live cure as long as you do a dry cure. Both remove chlorophyll and so both result in a smooth smoke. What is essential is to cure at some point to remove the harsh taste from chlorophyll.
I will add a data point for the people who have said about terpene production being aided by micronutrients in later flower as other people who have grown the same clones as me failed to get as complete an expression of the potential of the plant, aroma-wise, when they used the same brand of nutrient, in the same type of system (NFT) under the same lights (HPS), with the only difference being a flush. They did a (to my mind excessive) three-week flush, and whilst they also attained the same yield they did so with 33% more space, 33% extra light, and weeks more time. My view is that, because they had their plants in no nutrients for 1/3 of their flowering time, they impinged on the vital nutrient uptake during a critical time thereby reducing the quality and yield of their final product. Most people who flush for less than 10 days IMO would not see this drastic reduction, the plant has enough reserves to last for roughly that long.
They were obsessive about monitoring their plants and their environment was almost perfect, same as mine. They always asked me what I did to get a better result than them yet never believed that it was the lack of flushing. To them, it was too counterintuitive and they could not let go of their certainty they were doing the right thing.
EDIT :
To anyone on either side who says there is no evidence either way, this is now no longer the case, although it used to be in the past. Now that Cannabis is legal in some places, that means it is legal to study for your post graduate, or whatever course you are on where it might be relevent.
This means studies are slowly coming out. Scientific studies that actually look at what remains in the cells of the plant. It is no longer ‘stoner science’.
The levels on nutrients are not lowered by a live cure, or flush. What is lowered is chlorophyll. The question of whether nutrient levels reduce is not in question any more and they do not reduce.
Of course, there will be a taste difference between cured and uncured cannabis but that is not comparing apples to apples. The actual test should be between properly cured cannabis and properly cured cannabis with the only difference compared being live cure, or dry cure.
Nicely worded reply. I want to highlight the point you made about excessive flushing. The plant is using energy to stay alive and grow without the energy to produce the secondary metabolites. Thus less THC, smell, and taste.
