@TheCalyxLaboratory , welcome to the site captain. been seeing a lot of AI copy and paste responses to questions. you do you, G. the AI says too much and loses itself. for example, the "Scientific studies have shown that flushing for weeks doesn't actually lower the nutrient content inside the buds," you refer to by proxy of using the AI's response is actually a niche paper from Canada on water delivery optimization where an ad-hoc review of nutrient levels as a spot check asked for more research and money to look into this phenom... basically, a science paper at the graduate (master's level) on drip irrigation said a one liner with a measurement about nutrient levels, and now here you are repeating that. that paper wasnt on flushing. that paper wasnt on nutrient levels in plant mass. that paper ended like all papers do. noting every possible avenue for more funding (then asking for............more funding.....). that is academia brrudda. i note that this was a master's level paper because we have had formal phds in the West in this space for half a decade now from accredited unis. furthermore, even the premise is facetious. who ever said flushing has anything to do directly with mineral content in flower mass? nobody EVER said that.... flushing is about the medium and rootzone, anything else is confounded by dependencies and that is simply understanding cultivation basics.
on flushing... i love having this debate with folks, because the ones repeating these arguments are simply not prepared for real debate. if flushing has no purpose, explain EC oscillations over 24 hour periods in hydroponics..... point and case, flushing has a place and a purpose just off rip without discussing nutrient levels or fade. GG