Actually it is the SCROG that benefits most. Those who are still going vertical will sooner or later learn to limit vertical growth and eventually train to limit it further, open up the center and SCROG for support. Thus SCROG is an eventual outgrowth of defoliation or vice-versa.
Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?
- Thread starter k33ftr33z
- Start date
- Status
Actually it is the SCROG that benefits most. Those who are still going vertical will sooner or later learn to limit vertical growth and eventually train to limit it further, open up the center and SCROG for support. Thus SCROG is an eventual outgrowth of defoliation or vice-versa.
Lollipopping has been mentioned a few times...
Lollipopping IMHO is a regressive strategy and reveals a need to veg a little less, defoliate so those bottoms will soon develop to a quality that you would no longer desire to remove them. The combination of these strategies will maximize production in the allotted space and reach the sweet spot between height, branchiness and production.
Lollipopping IMHO is a regressive strategy and reveals a need to veg a little less, defoliate so those bottoms will soon develop to a quality that you would no longer desire to remove them. The combination of these strategies will maximize production in the allotted space and reach the sweet spot between height, branchiness and production.
Lollipopping has been mentioned a few times...
Lollipopping IMHO is a regressive strategy and reveals a need to veg a little less, defoliate so those bottoms will soon develop to a quality that you would no longer desire to remove them. The combination of these strategies will maximize production in the allotted space and reach the sweet spot between height, branchiness and production.
Lollipopping IMHO is a regressive strategy and reveals a need to veg a little less, defoliate so those bottoms will soon develop to a quality that you would no longer desire to remove them. The combination of these strategies will maximize production in the allotted space and reach the sweet spot between height, branchiness and production.
Maybe, but not too many. My feeling is that a leafy plant may be dependent on some of those leaves. Nevertheless many have posted that this is precisely when they start removal so use your best judgement and proceed gradually. My style starts early using the technique to structure a plant to be squat and filled with budsites..so start preparing your next group.
Okay but was it so difficult for you to respond as you did? That answered my question and surely was alot faster then reading over 50 pages to see if a question you have has already been asked and answered. I'm sorry if asking you to sum it up quickly was a hardship. I don't see where it should be, I also run a long thread and am glad to summarize something and then refer them to earlier posts if they need more clarification. That's me though and I don't mean to project my views of how things should be on to you.
Anyway thanks for your response, as I said it addressed my concerns. I've had several people come to me of late and ask me what I think of defoliation. They seem to come away with the impression that just the removing of pretty much all the leaves is some "magic" technique and it's not. It just takes into consideration that our indoor environments while impressive for artificial are no where near what the plant is genetically geared for. Plants don't just wastefully throw out leaves for no purpose, they do so because the environment they're meant to be in is condusive for that. Especially since inverse squared is pretty much irrelevent with sunlight due to the distance sunlight has already traveled from the source.
Sorry for taking up your time.
Well one of the people recently coming to me asking about this technique employs 3 1K lights so while you may mean it as being something for less lights not everyone is coming away with that message. Perhaps I'm not the only one not reading the entire thread?
Really to me what you're describing is a ScrOG. I see in another post you make the connection to ScrOG as the eventual evolution of defoliation or vice versa, now that I can agree with. I've done a controlled "defoliation" of sorts so it's not something I need to prove or disprove. Whather I do it or how much I do depends on the circumstances and style of that particular grow. I'm only here out of concern for the message others walk away with.
As for penetration you're missing my point and or thinking of penetration differently then I am. I've seen people talk about removing leaves to unblock budsites at the bottom of 4' + plants as if doing so will allow budsites that far from the light to get significantly bigger. My point is that at four feet from most lights, the light is already too weak to do any real good whether there is a leaf in the way of not. That's what I'm talking about when I say penetration, I'm talking about a matter of power not a matter of visibility. This is unique to artificial light in that while the same laws apply to sunlight, sunlight has already traveled so far that any height changes on earth have no real impact. The light is pretty much as good at the ground as it is 30 feet up in the air.
I just finished a defoliated run and can say that not only did i get better penatration to the lower buds but the upper2/3 of the plant had much larger buds also. Its really dosent matter what size light your using this tech works period. I can post my pics again if anyone dosent wanna go back in the thread and look. I dont normally weigh out my harvest but i do fill jars. From this defoliated run i harvested 20% more bud. Peace LL
C
Carl Carlson
and for those that mentioned vertical lighting, refer to those posts by Delta9.
bs0
Active member
And this is how you are, completely, 100% wrong.
120% even. 200% more likely.
A 400w HPS is nearly blinding to the human eye @ 4' distance. I dare you to look at a 600w HPS from 4' (no I don't, it would harm your retina, don't do it)
For tangible evidence, uncover some of the light-green buds at the lowest part of your plant. Expose them to light. Wait 5 days. Then start hypothesizing again. You aren't speaking from evidence or from reality, you are speaking from personal conjecture. Conjecture has no place here. Assuming makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me' is how the saying goes.
You're the one making assumptions as you have no clue as to what I have and haven't done. As for your point well first let me say it's pretty retarded to suggest something can be more then 100% wrong. That being said it's irrelevent what a light is like to the human eye since plants don't have human eyes or percieve light in relationship to brightness (lumens) like humans do. Plants respond to the amount of energy (PAR) present in a light and depending on the quality of the light and how it's made you can have alot of lumens (have it be very bright to the human eye) and not have enough PAR to do the plants any good. That's why some of the brighter lights available to man aren't good for growing. Also what I'm saying isn't a hypothesis, the inverse squared rule is a fundemental law of physics as it applies to energy. It's scientific fact, tested, measured and proven.
My advice to you, if you're going to try to attack someone's position on something, have a clue as to what the hell you're talking about.
buddin_904
Member
^ although you cant theoretically be 200% wrong.....he does have a point.....take away leaves shading otherwise "popcorn" nug and you will be rewarded with dense dank......yes there becomes a point where buds at the bottom inch of a plant with a light source 5 feet away wont be very dense regardless....but u shud trim bottom shit anways.....
2
2Lazy
At 4 feet from the bulb there is about 1/50th of the energy. For a 1000w HPS this is still enough energy to encourage photosynthesis. Ideally a 1000w bulb would be within 3 feet of the plants and offering up at least 5,000 lumens at 1/25th strength for full on photosynthesis.
A 400w lamp is the same, only 1/50th of 40,000 lumens is only 800. Really, a 400w lamp is only effective up to 30 inches, and even there...
For most growers, a 3 foot plant, with 24 inches of buds is a pretty typical occurrence. Thinning out the upper leaves allow for more of the vertical space to be used. For the sake of maximizing vertical space though, growing vertically sort of eliminates the need to defoliate at all while still giving the same yield increase results.
Lighting is 100% science. Learn the inverse square law. A little tip is that 1=6.8 inches for HID lighting.
A 400w lamp is the same, only 1/50th of 40,000 lumens is only 800. Really, a 400w lamp is only effective up to 30 inches, and even there...
For most growers, a 3 foot plant, with 24 inches of buds is a pretty typical occurrence. Thinning out the upper leaves allow for more of the vertical space to be used. For the sake of maximizing vertical space though, growing vertically sort of eliminates the need to defoliate at all while still giving the same yield increase results.
Lighting is 100% science. Learn the inverse square law. A little tip is that 1=6.8 inches for HID lighting.
buddin_904
Member
hello bro...i know what the inverse ^2 law is.....thanks for the tip....
it seems like you have little to no experience concerning small watt lamps. seems like your making assumptions based on what quality bud you think a small watt lamp yeilds.
it seems like you have little to no experience concerning small watt lamps. seems like your making assumptions based on what quality bud you think a small watt lamp yeilds.
twrex
Member
one what?
That's only part of it though and you're even acknowledging it in what you say. Yes remove a leaf shading a budsite and it will get bigger but only if that bud site is within the effective range of the light. If it's outside that range then it's not going to get bigger.
All of you reacting to what I'm saying are acting like I'm saying that the method k33ftr33z is talking about is bad or that I'm against the removal of leaves. Neither of which is what I'm saying. All I have been saying is that if you're going to go this route it's not just the removal of the leaves that get the dramatic results that k33ftr33z gets. He gets those results because he keeps the plant trained within the effective range of the light and removes excess leafage that doesn't serve it's purpose when a plant is heavily trained. What I'm against is the half understood message coming out of the thread that it's just simply the removal of the leaves that make a difference. Leaves are not bad, they have a purpose and the more you remove the more work the other leaves have to do to maintain plant health and get good bud growth. Plus the removal of leaves in general including ones that aren't really blocking bud sites is just plain stupid. That leaf is bringing in food for the plant so if it's not blocking anything you just limited the plant's ability to get food from light and you didn't benefit any bud sites because it wasn't blocking any.
You can take it further then that though, what about bud sites only partially blocked? Why does the whole leaf have to go? Why not trim it back to unblock the partially blocked budsite or better yet why not train the leaf over a little so the site isn't blocked? If you can unblock the budsites and not remove the leaves then those leaves will only add to the growth capable of the bud sites. The secret isn't just the random removing of leaves. The secret is keeping the plant compact and the budsites properly exposed. Removing leaves is just one means of achieving that goal but not the only one.
Finally if you think "but u shud trim bottom shit anways" then you're not paying attention to what k33ftr33z is saying. Go back and look at the pictures of the results of k33ftr33z method on his plants at the beginning. There's plenty of bottom shit he's not trimming and rightfully so, he's getting decent bud out of it because he trained his plants so the bottom growth is still getting good light. Although you can also see that the growth is not as good as what is up closer to the light.
Thnx Greyskull atleast you noticed. Lets forget about the bottom buds for a second. ALL The Buds benefit from defoliating. I know this works and will always defoliate. Theres always gonna be poeple that wanna argue diff points because its what they like to do (argue). But those of us that have tried this know whats up. Here we go again HaHa. I love these pics.
Day 16 before
Day 16 after
Day 20
Day 24 Before 2nd def
Day 24 after
Day 28
Day 32
Day 36
Day 40
Day 45 Chopped day 47
This was my 1st attempt at defoliating and things went way better than expected. I didnt take any leaf in veg. I started defoliating at day 16 bloom and did a 2nd leaf trim at day 24. Putting the lower buds aside. The upper 2/3s of the plant did way better. The light being able to penatrate to the bottom was good but the light intensity to the upper was even better. Buds were so dense they were like rocks.
Ft100 are you seeing anything like that?
Greyskull you?
Peace LL
Day 16 before
Day 16 after
Day 20
Day 24 Before 2nd def
Day 24 after
Day 28
Day 32
Day 36
Day 40
Day 45 Chopped day 47
This was my 1st attempt at defoliating and things went way better than expected. I didnt take any leaf in veg. I started defoliating at day 16 bloom and did a 2nd leaf trim at day 24. Putting the lower buds aside. The upper 2/3s of the plant did way better. The light being able to penatrate to the bottom was good but the light intensity to the upper was even better. Buds were so dense they were like rocks.
Ft100 are you seeing anything like that?
Greyskull you?
Peace LL
smokincheeze
Member
Thnx Greyskull atleast you noticed. Lets forget about the bottom buds for a second. ALL The Buds benefit from defoliating. I know this works and will always defoliate. Theres always gonna be poeple that wanna argue diff points because its what they like to do (argue). But those of us that have tried this know whats up. Here we go again HaHa. I love these pics.
Day 16 before
Day 16 after
Day 20
Day 24 Before 2nd def
Day 24 after
Day 28
Day 32
Day 36
Day 40
Day 45 Chopped day 47
This was my 1st attempt at defoliating and things went way better than expected. I didnt take any leaf in veg. I started defoliating at day 16 bloom and did a 2nd leaf trim at day 24. Putting the lower buds aside. The upper 2/3s of the plant did way better. The light being able to penatrate to the bottom was good but the light intensity to the upper was even better. Buds were so dense they were like rocks.
Ft100 are you seeing anything like that?
Greyskull you?
Peace LL
Very impressive, looks like one big mad bud ball.
- Status
