Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?

[Grat3fulh3ad]

No I do not agree with you on many things. I am not recanting anything. I believe that stressing a plant at any stage can cause hermie traits to appear in flower. Stressing just in flower is more likely to happen, but stress is stress. Things can appear later.

you believe something which you cannot demonstrate, and do so without any supporting evidence.

I know better...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I never said that stressing seedlings makes an intersexed plant show faster...where did you get that??

You just dont get it. I said, stressing BEFORE knowing sex is why it can hermie easier than a clone.

It is easier for a seeded plant to hermie

Obviously you do not know what you are talking about. Plants can change sex if stressed from seed much easier.

Easier... Faster... whatever... the basic gist is still the same and my comment can just as easily apply after changing 'faster' to 'easier'.

 

[VerdantGreen]

it isnt easier for a seed plant to hermie than for a clone to herme.

but the chances are if it's a clone then you or someone else has run it before - which means you will know if it is likely to herm or not - and if someone has kept it then it probably doesnt hermie - unless its so good you kept it anyway.

VG

 

[Boerman]

!Quote:
im kind of fascinated by the technique but my knowledge of how plants and leafs work also makes me wonder how the gains of removing all the leaf could possibly outweigh the losses in bud growth that the plant would suffer by having to divert sugars to grow more leaves.

Yeah, that was my first thought. It IS counter-intuitive but as some have pointed out those known and accepted biological "facts" are observations of nature. Despite what many may think, what we do indoors is FAR from "natural." We are putting a particular plant species through very unusual and artificial manipulations. I'm open to the possibility that "nature" can and will respond in unexpected ways under these conditions.

At last, meaningful discourse.

It may not be as counter-intuitive as you think. Maybe your perspective is a little off. Not trying to be in any way dismissing of you. Plants and animals generally start off as a single cell. That cell starts dividing and dividing. Somewhere along the way cells begin to differentiate and specialize. Some become roots, some stems, some leafs, etc. Clearly, not all leaves have the exact same function. It seems plausible to me that the bigger fan leaves might have a primary function of supporting vegetative growth; stems and other leafs; maybe not so much flowers. As part of its function, a fan leaf may produce hormones that inhibit or slow flower development.

Before I go any farther, let me say that this is conjecture and speculation on my part. I am not saying that this is the way it is, only that this is the way I am looking at it. I know who to expect negative comments from and, frankly, I could care less what their opinions are. But for those who are open minded and and willing to give things a little bit of thought...:

I am looking at growing a plant somewhat like a construction project. There are several jobs going on at once, but certain milestones need to be passed before moving on to the next section. To me, big fan leafs are like sub-contractors. Each one is responsible for a specific section of the overall project. While it is working on its particular section, it is sending a message(hormones) to hold off on starting new sections or projects until it has completed enough of its section to support the new work. When that leaf's section is near complete, it begins to go into a sort of maintenance mode where it provides energy support for its section but is no longer doing any heavy construction. Depending on photoperiod, slowdown in metabolic activity would signal the plant to either start further extension or start/increase flowering. I suspect that big fans provide little, if any, actual nutritive support for buds. That would be up to the smaller leafs in closer proximity to the buds. The big fans would still serve a lesser purpose. In addition to providing a little storage for mobile nutes, they also offer a first line of protection from predation. They are an easy decoy target for bugs and herbavores. At the same time, bugs and herbavores are not necessarily bad. They prune (defoliate) those big leafs, allowing more light to reach inner and lower buds.

So, it is not counter-intuitive to me to remove large fan leafs. It is more counter-intuitive to me to assume that all leafs have the exact same function.

 

[VerdantGreen]

its true that leaves lose their photosynthetic efficiency as they get older. if i have to remove leaves then i try to choose the older ones, but leaves are also the primary source of energy to the sidebranch that grows at the same place.

in veg i prefer to top them and veg under LED's which keeps them nice and short. horses for courses

 

[Boerman]

JWP:

Does this make sense?

Sweetest Cindy99, defoliated in veg and flower.

dram- nice work. Am I correctly interpreting what I see in the pic? Is the tallest cola actually one of the lowest branches? I am seeing most of the clones that I am pruning in veg end up with 3 or 4 of the branches just about the same height as the main cola. pics later

 

[TruthOrLie]

The red dot on the left is obviously bigger, right???






(The Red Dots are exactly the same)

 

[slowandeasy]

you believe something which you cannot demonstrate, and do so without any supporting evidence.

I know better...

BTW, Obesesity, Diabetes, OCD, Bi-Polar, Thyroid problems, coronary heart disease, retinal disease, sickle cell, substance abuse, ETC are all genes that some humans have that when stressed as a child can manifest itself to effect you later in life. Oh yeah, I am done bickering with you about this...so don't waste your time. This thread is not about this.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

lol @ plant trait = human disease...

 

[dramamine]

dram- nice work. Am I correctly interpreting what I see in the pic? Is the tallest cola actually one of the lowest branches? I am seeing most of the clones that I am pruning in veg end up with 3 or 4 of the branches just about the same height as the main cola. pics later

Howdy, Boerman-- Thanks. Yes, the plant was also FIM'd early on and grown with vertical lighting. All branches end up roughly the same size. The branching on this pheno became especially uniform.

 

[slowandeasy]

lol @ plant trait = human disease...

Good comeback, I never said human disease. No plant trait = human trait...not disease. They are called genetic traits for a reason. You asked for just 1 example, I gave you plenty. If you have that dominant genetic trait and are exposed to stressors at an early age they can manifest themselves later in life. Kinda funny when someone shows you proof you ask for, you try to blow it off. I am done giving you the satisfaction of arguing with someone. I am sure you will disappear from this thread for awhile like always, then comeback and start clogging the thread for a few days. Peace!!

 

[Dave Coulier]

At last, meaningful discourse.

It may not be as counter-intuitive as you think. Maybe your perspective is a little off. Not trying to be in any way dismissing of you. Plants and animals generally start off as a single cell. That cell starts dividing and dividing. Somewhere along the way cells begin to differentiate and specialize. Some become roots, some stems, some leafs, etc. Clearly, not all leaves have the exact same function. It seems plausible to me that the bigger fan leaves might have a primary function of supporting vegetative growth; stems and other leafs; maybe not so much flowers. As part of its function, a fan leaf may produce hormones that inhibit or slow flower development.

Before I go any farther, let me say that this is conjecture and speculation on my part. I am not saying that this is the way it is, only that this is the way I am looking at it. I know who to expect negative comments from and, frankly, I could care less what their opinions are. But for those who are open minded and and willing to give things a little bit of thought...:

I am looking at growing a plant somewhat like a construction project. There are several jobs going on at once, but certain milestones need to be passed before moving on to the next section. To me, big fan leafs are like sub-contractors. Each one is responsible for a specific section of the overall project. While it is working on its particular section, it is sending a message(hormones) to hold off on starting new sections or projects until it has completed enough of its section to support the new work. When that leaf's section is near complete, it begins to go into a sort of maintenance mode where it provides energy support for its section but is no longer doing any heavy construction. Depending on photoperiod, slowdown in metabolic activity would signal the plant to either start further extension or start/increase flowering. I suspect that big fans provide little, if any, actual nutritive support for buds. That would be up to the smaller leafs in closer proximity to the buds. The big fans would still serve a lesser purpose. In addition to providing a little storage for mobile nutes, they also offer a first line of protection from predation. They are an easy decoy target for bugs and herbavores. At the same time, bugs and herbavores are not necessarily bad. They prune (defoliate) those big leafs, allowing more light to reach inner and lower buds.

So, it is not counter-intuitive to me to remove large fan leafs. It is more counter-intuitive to me to assume that all leafs have the exact same function.

Your logic is quite twisted there. You've gotten a few things wrong. It is the large fan leaves that fuel bud growth. Ive seen this on my own plants that suffered from a horrible zinc deficiency. The areas where fan leaves remained green and active had larger buds, while the fan leaves that were decimated by Zinc deficiency had buds that were miniature. The large fan leaves provide a much greater surface area for photosynthesis to occur than over bud leaves. Its even been said in this thread that removing the fan leaves has resulted in smaller buds on their plants.


You are also incorrect on the amount of mobile nutrients stored in the fan leaves. They have quite a bit. Have you ever witnessed a mobile nutrient deficiency occur in your plants? It starts with the oldest and largest fan leaves, then progresses to the smaller leaves, and bud leaves. N, P, K, Cl, Mg, Mo, are mobile nutrients, and the largest leaves will of course have the greatest concentration of these nutrients that can be consumed by the newer smaller growth when supplies are limited.

I will agree with you that fan leaves fuel growth for that node they are attached to. This is pretty easy to see if one observes their plants when placed under nutrient stress.

 

[JWP]

Howdy, Boerman-- Thanks. Yes, the plant was also FIM'd early on and grown with vertical lighting. All branches end up roughly the same size. The branching on this pheno became especially uniform.

Is this image an accurate demonstration of defoliation and FIMing?

Because i connot see any juncture on that plant where the FIM technique has been properly used.

I guess you missed! lol

 

[lbezphil2005]

Holy Crap!!!

Holy Crap!!!

At last, meaningful discourse.

It may not be as counter-intuitive as you think. Maybe your perspective is a little off. Not trying to be in any way dismissing of you. Plants and animals generally start off as a single cell. That cell starts dividing and dividing. Somewhere along the way cells begin to differentiate and specialize. Some become roots, some stems, some leafs, etc. Clearly, not all leaves have the exact same function. It seems plausible to me that the bigger fan leaves might have a primary function of supporting vegetative growth; stems and other leafs; maybe not so much flowers. As part of its function, a fan leaf may produce hormones that inhibit or slow flower development.

Before I go any farther, let me say that this is conjecture and speculation on my part. I am not saying that this is the way it is, only that this is the way I am looking at it. I know who to expect negative comments from and, frankly, I could care less what their opinions are. But for those who are open minded and and willing to give things a little bit of thought...:

I am looking at growing a plant somewhat like a construction project. There are several jobs going on at once, but certain milestones need to be passed before moving on to the next section. To me, big fan leafs are like sub-contractors. Each one is responsible for a specific section of the overall project. While it is working on its particular section, it is sending a message(hormones) to hold off on starting new sections or projects until it has completed enough of its section to support the new work. When that leaf's section is near complete, it begins to go into a sort of maintenance mode where it provides energy support for its section but is no longer doing any heavy construction. Depending on photoperiod, slowdown in metabolic activity would signal the plant to either start further extension or start/increase flowering. I suspect that big fans provide little, if any, actual nutritive support for buds. That would be up to the smaller leafs in closer proximity to the buds. The big fans would still serve a lesser purpose. In addition to providing a little storage for mobile nutes, they also offer a first line of protection from predation. They are an easy decoy target for bugs and herbavores. At the same time, bugs and herbavores are not necessarily bad. They prune (defoliate) those big leafs, allowing more light to reach inner and lower buds.

So, it is not counter-intuitive to me to remove large fan leafs. It is more counter-intuitive to me to assume that all leafs have the exact same function.

Sir, you just hit the nail on the head!! In this whole thread (and I've read every single page!) this is the most well put, well thought comment on the whole argument for or against. Well said, well thought out, if I could give more reps than what they allow I'd load you up like there's no tomorrow!! Great job!!!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Good comeback, I never said human disease. No plant trait = human trait...not disease. They are called genetic traits for a reason. You asked for just 1 example, I gave you plenty. If you have that dominant genetic trait and are exposed to stressors at an early age they can manifest themselves later in life. Kinda funny when someone shows you proof you ask for, you try to blow it off. I am done giving you the satisfaction of arguing with someone. I am sure you will disappear from this thread for awhile like always, then comeback and start clogging the thread for a few days. Peace!!

well, you only named diseases, and tried to make a false analogy out of the naming.
You have never presented one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims about stressing seedlings.
only false analogy after false analogy.
I'll stop posting in this thread when people stop making asinine assertions.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

One thing i have noticed is that a lot of these hardcore defoliators are mostly new members from late 09 and 2010.

Another thing i have noticed is that when a logical argument is presented to them rather than discuss or even present evidence as to why our argument may be wrong they dont. They quickly label you as a "hater" or "troll" here to cause trouble then proceed to sling abuse at you.

Even stranger than this has been the edit on the first page by k33ftr33z in which he encourages people to read a defoliation propaganda PDF created by his "friend" Tuhder rather than read the whole thread.

Stranger still is all these defoliation gurus from 09/2010 have very few post & no threads and most bizarre of all is that most have zero grow pictures and the ones that do are laughable.

The absolute most stangest thing about this thread is the way it is defended by "powerfull" people and kept as a sticky. Even when no credible evidence to support the claim of the threads title has been presented. I know of many many other threads that deserve to be in its place..

 

[staff11]

Yeah because your join date to a pot site = experience. lol Anyways, I have never said it works or doesn't, I was just trying to point out that plenty of people in this thread aren't doing anything near what the OP was posting. Defoliating in flower... Again not the technique he expressed.

And I have also said over and over again it's just another way to train a plant. Strange and illogical as it is.

 

[staff11]

Does that mean that if i have to add %30 to my grow time i should also deduct 30% from my final yield?

If i do that then defoliation is a Low-Yield Technique..

30% longer for the same result?




You obviously have read it! Appart from just repeating rubbish you have read please explain the logic behind this recommendation?

A seed plant will be better able to recover from defoliation abuse because the plant will have a better developed root & vascular system.

So how is it that clones only should be used when logically a seed plant will be better able to cope?

Because this is what the OP stated. This isn't your technique. It's his and if you had read he doesn't advise. Again, read the fucking thread. I wont force you.

And how is it that when I have a ROOTED clone it won't respond? What you think I just start ripping leaves off an unrooted clone? Yeah...right.

I actually read through this whole thing, unlike you.

Basically 90% of the people in this thread aren't even doing what the poster advised.... A few have tried it in veg and on. The rest just do what they will......

Peace to all, this thread is a waste of space, like a lot of posters here.

 

[JWP]

Because this is what the OP stated. This isn't your technique. It's his and if you had read he doesn't advise. Again, read the fucking thread. I wont force you.

And how is it that when I have a ROOTED clone it won't respond? What you think I just start ripping leaves off an unrooted clone? Yeah...right.

I actually read through this whole thing, unlike you.

Basically 90% of the people in this thread aren't even doing what the poster advised.... A few have tried it in veg and on. The rest just do what they will......

Peace to all, this thread is a waste of space, like a lot of posters here.

I have read the whole thread more than once. I have also read the defoliation propaganda PDF.

This whole post above is exactly what i'm talking about. You dont address the issue i pointed out to you. Rather you abuse me? Whats up with that defoliation lover?



Here is exactly how it went;

1. I report that my defoliated plants look like crap and explain that i removed fans only from seed plants.

2.

You obviously skipped the part that says YOU DO THIS WITH CLONED PLANTS... NOT SEEDS.

3.I respond;
You obviously have read it! Appart from just repeating rubbish you have read please explain the logic behind this recommendation?

A seed plant will be better able to recover from defoliation abuse because the plant will have a better developed root & vascular system.

So how is it that clones only should be used when logically a seed plant will be better able to cope?

A. Stating my knowledge of your reading of the "ops" instructions. And ask you to explain your understanding of this.
B. Stating the obvious that an undamaged plant (from seed) will better cope with defoliation abuse than a clone (which has a damaged root & vascular system)
C. Ask why the damaged plant should cope better than the undamaged plant.


You still have not awswered why the undamaged seed plant cant cope as well with the trauma of defoliation as the (damaged) clone can?

"What you think I just start ripping leaves off an unrooted clone?"

Where in this whole passage do i ever say this?

Stop with the avoidance & abuse and answer the question!

 

[JWP]

Thats the problem with this whole thread.

People ask simple questions and rather than giving an honest answer a samll group proceed to abuse the people asking the questions and totaly avoid an answer.

Thats what %80 of this thread is.. avoidance.



So please staff11, just answer this simple question.

1. Why use clones for defoliation only?

"Because this is what the OP stated" is not a proper answer.