Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?

[Phedrosbenny]

And to think these wise words come from a guy that joined up THIS YEAR

To me it is VERY IMPORTANT to understand the OP of this thread has been doing this style for DECADES. Not days or weeks or even years were talking DECADES.

The ability to be able to look at a plant and know what it needs is something no website or book or you tube video will ever teach. Now understand it might be able to give you an IDEA of what to do but ONLY YOU know YOUR GROW and only YOU can make it or break it.

I kinda like it when someone posts up something like "I tried your advice and you killed my plants a-hole" like it was the man giving the advice that drove over to the grow and poured it in his plants lol

I usually come back with "dude you need to run into the bathroom right now and look in the mirror and give that SOB you see hell for killing your plants."

To me this method is something that would require a great deal of time to effectively learn the proper way to do it. I've never tried it to this extreme so I will say his results look effective so he might be on to something BUT how would this method work on bigger plants say a 3-5 gallon bucket where as the energy needed for her would be considerable greater?

When I get more time I think I'll come back and read some more.


Have A Great Day
Mr.Wags

Sorry about that man.Sometimes im a little thick headed.lols

 

[medmaker420]

so from reading this, does this work or no? I got lost within the bitching that seemed to never end lol.

I tried this on some of mine

some have better branching and others look like it didn't take to them that well. It has to be pheno and strain dependant just like any other method that calls for removal or damage to part of the plant.

I think that some might have a strain that looks to have not liked the defoliation and others might have a strain that digs it and starts branching out for them.

It could be hit and miss just like every other method, right?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

We are redirecting the energy.Its used making more budsights that equal more bud.

Leaves gather energy for the plant.
You are not redirecting its energy, you are reducing it's capability to gather energy.


You're tearing down power stations to build reduced capacity factories.

To provide more light to whatever of my lowers I didn't remove (to redirect the energy to the tops, it's used making the buds bigger. bigger bud equals more bud.), I simply tuck any offending fan leaves under the branch it shaded. Then they don't shade anything, but are still able to produce some energy for the plant.

 

[rasputin]

Then they don't shade anything, but are still able to produce some energy for the plant.

H3ad, in that instance is it not worth removing the offending leave so as to avoid 'creating' or enabling a sink? That you say 'still able to produce some energy...' makes me think its energy production will surely diminish. So why not remove this leaf?

We know the plants make decisions all the time to drop leaves on their own. At what point is it, if at all, advantageous for us to jump in and speed up that process? Granted, the plant has its own particular reasons for dropping one versus another while we at best are making judgment calls as to which one's to pull.

I haven't yet been able to do a true head-to-head to see if any of my plants respond well to defoliation but removing the lower sites made a significant difference. In theory, removing plant mass to re-direct energy and such sounds reasonable. And those who've tried it know that in practice, it works. But as has been mentioned, there's obviously a big difference between pulling off low bud sites that use energy, inefficiently so, versus removing the plants solar panels that create energy. I know when removing lower growth I've removed potential energy users while maintaining the existing amount of energy providers, thus making the plant more energy efficient. At what point, if at all, is it beneficial to remove some energy producers as well? I know it sounds counterproductive, 'remove energy producers', but I'm curious if at some point on the sliding scale these competing interests meet.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Tucked under is doing some good for the plant, gone is doing none.

The plant is trying to reproduce.
That's it's only goal in life.
When a plant grows a leaf or drops a leaf it is in pursuit of making the most possible flowers, and thus the most potential seeds.
The plant is not growing leaves for the sake of growing leaves, the plant is growing leaves for the sake of providing energy for reproduction (bud production).

How can you remove half of a factory's solar cells, and expect it to increase production?

 

[Phedrosbenny]

Leaves gather energy for the plant.
You are not redirecting its energy, you are reducing it's capability to gather energy.


You're tearing down power stations to build reduced capacity factories.

To provide more light to whatever of my lowers I didn't remove (to redirect the energy to the tops, it's used making the buds bigger. bigger bud equals more bud.), I simply tuck any offending fan leaves under the branch it shaded. Then they don't shade anything, but are still able to produce some energy for the plant.

I know you have your own way of growing and that you are good at it...but it does work.

 

[Japanfreakier]

Leaves gather energy for the plant.
You are not redirecting its energy, you are reducing it's capability to gather energy.


You're tearing down power stations to build reduced capacity factories.

To provide more light to whatever of my lowers I didn't remove (to redirect the energy to the tops, it's used making the buds bigger. bigger bud equals more bud.), I simply tuck any offending fan leaves under the branch it shaded. Then they don't shade anything, but are still able to produce some energy for the plant.

So how to explain that some people get such great results with this style?

I don't get how you guys think repeating tired old "power station" nonsense says anything about the results. Beyond me.

 

[slowandeasy]

Tucked under is doing some good for the plant, gone is doing none.

The plant is trying to reproduce.
That's it's only goal in life.
When a plant grows a leaf or drops a leaf it is in pursuit of making the most possible flowers, and thus the most potential seeds.
The plant is not growing leaves for the sake of growing leaves, the plant is growing leaves for the sake of providing energy for reproduction (bud production).

How can you remove half of a factory's solar cells, and expect it to increase production?

Have you tried this method? No offense Head, but sometimes things that do not seem right actually work. I agree with your theory, but I am not scared to experiment. In doing so, I had my best yield out of one of my tents. The buds were way more dense than usual, way bigger, and I had ZERO fluff from light blocking lower parts of plants.

This method may not be for everyone, and obviously most people think it is a crock of shit. For me, it works very well. So maybe instead claiming it does not work, give it a try? Everyone has there opinion, but until you try something...do not say it does not work.

BTW, once plants start budding the fan leaf production is way less anyhow. And what happens to leaf that get hardly any light? They fall off! If a plants only job is to reproduce, then why does it need fan leaves? Buds are what are used to reproduce....not leaves.

 

[Japanfreakier]

Wouldn't it be a dream if people stopped giving opinions on things they haven't tried first hand?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I don't doubt one bit that it is a method you can use to expose more bud sites. I highly doubt it is the best method in any garden you can stand up in. I'm not saying it does not have it's place.

Yes, I played around with defoliation when this thread was done 8 years ago on Overgrow.

It all boils down to whether you want your big buds to weigh more, or whether you want more popcorn buds.

All other things being equal, I've never seen any evidence of any final weight increase from defoliating a plant.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Wouldn't it be a dream if people stopped giving opinions on things they haven't tried first hand?

or assuming that someone who has been growing for decades has never experienced something they are giving an opinion on?

 

[Japanfreakier]

All other things being equal, I've never seen any evidence of any final weight increase from defoliating a plant.

The grower a few posts up just told he got more, end of story. But hey why not just dismiss him because you know something right?

I've seen plenty of grows that use this style that get yields most people would be jealous of.....if they had the balls to be honest.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The grower a few posts up just told he got more, end of story. But hey why not just dismiss him because you know something right?

I've seen plenty of grows that use this style that get yields most people would be jealous of.....if they had the balls to be honest.

"Just told us he got more"

more than what?

I've seen a much better result from removing lowers, than from removing the leaves from tops in an effort to light lowers.

 

[slowandeasy]

I don't doubt one bit that it is a method to expose more bud sites. I highly doubt it is the best method in any garden you can stand up in. I'm not saying it does not have it's place.

Yes, I played around with defoliation when this thread was done 9 years ago on Overgrow.

It all boils down to whether you want your big buds to weigh more, or whether you want more popcorn buds.

All other things being equal, I've never seen any evidence of any final weight increase from defoliating a plant.

What about if you want your Big Buds to be Bigger and your Popcorn buds to be bigger? Because that is what happens if you try it! I had zero fluff this round. In over a decade I have never had ZERO worthless material on a plant. Not defoliating gives me a shit ton of material to make into edibles from the undergrowth.

If you read the thread in whole, you would see proof of increased yields. I cannot wait til my final weight is calculated this round. I did everything the same as usual, except defoliating. I will post the proof in a few days.

 

[Japanfreakier]

"Just told us he got more"

more than what?

More beer, what the fuck do you think he got more of?

 

[Tilt]

I havent been successfull either. I'm gonna wait till I have more experience before trying again

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

BTW, once plants start budding the fan leaf production is way less anyhow. And what happens to leaf that get hardly any light? They fall off! If a plants only job is to reproduce, then why does it need fan leaves? Buds are what are used to reproduce....not leaves.

Yes the plant knows when to defoliate, and uses the nutrition from the leaf to feed the rest of the plant when she does so.

The leaves are there to feed the plant energy to build buds with.
Obviously I never said leaves are used to reproduce.
Leaves gather solar energy and convert it into bud.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

More beer, what the fuck do you think he got more of?

bud, obviously... but...... More bud than what?

than he imagined he'd have gotten otherwise?
Than he'd been getting?
Than he'd have gotten culling the lowers?

Let's see something quantifiable, eh... No I don't accept "trust me it works" when I've seen otherwise and know better.


beer
what a useless reply "more beer"

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

What about if you want your Big Buds to be Bigger and your Popcorn buds to be bigger? Because that is what happens if you try it! I had zero fluff this round. In over a decade I have never had ZERO worthless material on a plant. Not defoliating gives me a shit ton of material to make into edibles from the undergrowth.

If you read the thread in whole, you would see proof of increased yields. I cannot wait til my final weight is calculated this round. I did everything the same as usual, except defoliating. I will post the proof in a few days.

Good deal... can't wait... I love quantifiable data.

You could have always had zero worthless material had you been culling your lowers.

 

[TruthOrLie]

When I first came to ICmag I found a thread that said a MJ plant without its leaves is like a Ferrari without its wheels...

...after some time I have tried this method, but without doing a side by side.

All I can compare is from previous grows... and I don't notice a big difference. Probably something you could only determine with a scale.

But just because someone has been doing something for decades doesn't mean it works. You could easily have been doing it wrong for decades.

One thing to consider is...

...possibly the MJ plant creates more leaves than it needs in order to compete with leaf destroying/consumind pests such as caterpillar or thrips?

By removing the leaves, you create a vigorous response of the plant to produce bigger reproduction sites?

Like with FIMing and LST...