Flowering.... trimming fan leaves off....leaving fan leaves on

[Coconutz]

No offense homie, just trying to help out. Most of those buds up in the cannopy dont look much thicker that the stems and there are a lot of bare spots. When it dries it shrivels a lot.
I think you could have gotten the same yield, if not more, but certainly bigger buds, if you removed those skinny secondaries instead of trying to get them more light by removing all the leaf from the bigger branches.
The skinny stems arent gonna grow fat colas no matter what.
Anything that isnt gonna be part of the cola I remove and dont need to remove much leaf at all. I just want big buds, no popcorn.
These are just starting to swell, but they have almost all the leaves. I remove them a few at time as they grow into eachother and other buds. The stems are as fat as the stakes. Thats what makes the buds fat.
If the plant isnt drinking as much for a few days in flower its either gonna take longer, produce less, or both.
I use coco so that I can get faster wet/dry cycles so that my plants uptake more and produce more.
In the original defoliation thread the dude was growing squat plants in a little chamber. Defoliation has its place.

 

[papaduc]

None taken brother.

But... Bring up your picture on the left. Then bring up the second picture in my post. And flash between them. I don't know if the picture is deceiving - it's always hard to tell and I should have used something as size reference - but that cola is just over a foot long and it was solid. When I look at the pic you posted from slightly above your canopy, I can tell those buds aren't the same size as mine. I also had moved the others which were packed in, with a cane, to take the photo. When I released the cane the canopy was as packed as you see in the other picture in that post.


Then, bring up the picture of my canopy, then bring up yours. You can see that it's a lot more dense. I've done scrog many times and believe me, the canopy you have is more of what I would be used to. The canopy I had here was ridiculously crammed. The density on the lower buds, I doubt I'd have got if I hadn't defoliated.

The smaller buds you talk about are from a kush. As you know they don't produce like the more mershy dutch strains and the golf ball thing is normal. When you look at the canopy you can tell (I hope) the bigger yielders from the not so.

All in all, the point I'm making is that even if you split hairs over which canopy is more dense, or which looks like it yielded the most, what I think you definitely have to concede is that there is no drastic negative effect upon health and yield from doing what I did. It was very much a blind faith thing - done after much reading - but the results showed me that no matter what else, the plant definitely didn't suffer as a result.

 

[Coconutz]

You keep saying " you think ", but Im telling you Ive done both and multiple variations of both. Removing leaf is fine and it helps.
I thought your main colas were longer than 12". Mine are 1ft exactly.
We are talking about different strains at different times.
Im just pointing out that the bottom buds still look as dense as the top of the cola and theres no larf with all the leaf.
Its all about the fat stems. How often have you seen a small bud on a fat stem? I just like getting rid of the skinny stuff instead of trying to get light to it.
Even if it doesnt improve yield, it at least leaves me with bigger, better looking buds and less trimming to do.
Ive trimmed popcorn before, but I wont do it again.

 

[papaduc]

But it's not all about fat stems though, is it? That's not what i thought it was about anyway. I thought we were talking about the effect of defoliation on the plants. Like I said, the effect you described was one which was "very bad thing" and that it would "stunt your plant"

That is not what I found and I think my pictures show that. What your opinion are on what to keep is a completely separate debate.

I have also done more than one scrog bro, and all I'm saying is that the picture you posted of your canopy is what I'd consider a normal canopy. I wouldn't need to defoliate at all in that case. The canopy I achieved last time was a lot more dense. I think in that sense it's more important.

I keep saying "I think" because the debate for me is still open ended. Your results are far from conclusive in proving what you say in regard to the negative effect of defoliating in flower. And maybe mine don't prove anything for definite either. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Coconutz]

Ive never seen a fat bud on a skinny stem. (except a propped up floppy, but even then its not a cola) What Im talking about is fat buds. The little stuff isnt worth much if its not personal. By the time it dries and shrivels up, and then makes it through a few hands and into into 1/8ths and gs, its all tiny buds.
Fat stems = fat buds.
Even on viney OG's I just keep the budsites that stay close to the stem, or are short and tough.
I didnt say it would kill your plant to all of a sudden remove a bunch of leaf, I just said it will slow it down and possibly reduce output.
You cant say it didnt slow down or reduce yield, just that you were satisfied with the end results.
I can understand that. Im just trying to post helpful info.
Its not fair to say on this forum that it improved anything at this point. Its also possible that it just salvaged some bud sites that should have been removed.
In the long run I think you would also be happy with bigger buds and less trimming.

 

[DHF]

Hey Papaduc.....I was hornswaggled into believing that massive defoliation was the equivalent of the second coming of Christ by Jrosek yrs ago , and I did it to several 100 plants @ day 21 and again @ day 45 per his "strict" instructions and......

It shut down and stunted the fuck outta my Chem D`s , and took an extra 2 weeks on finish time to get the same swellage and end results from an already 10 week stretch.....IOW......

Gotta respectfully disagree that strippin the shit outta plants all at once during ANY part of the flower cycle is hands down NOT a good thing to advise folks to do regardless of your findings with your seed run and different phenotypic expression acting the same......

I found out first hand the HARD way that once stretch is completely done , you can start removing all fans with a stem gradually over a 10-14 day period without stunting the plants , and .......

As an end result have not necessarily increased yields , but more fully developed nuggage from top to bottom of plant , while helping the plants rid themselves of excess N that`s stored in the fans for a win-win in my book , plus bein a breeze to trim come harvey....anyways......

My 2 cents from strippin hundreds of plants on a regular basis at the right time at multiple perpetual locations and flip rooms over a several yr period ......Not just 1 or 2 occurrences......

Peace....DHF........

 

[EclipseFour20]

Fat buds on skinny stems...hmmm, got some of those in my garden (5-8 grammers). They require lots of support and are full of sugar! Not my preference, I would prefer thicker stems/stalks, but the genetics is what it is....skinny legged girl.

BTW...IMHO, excessive "anything" is no bueno and can shock the plant. I subscribe to the philosophy of "constant training", which means some today, some tomorrow--never ALL today!

Cheers!

 

[Bassy59]

Making blanket statements about what one should or shouldnt do on this topic is very misleading imho.

In my experience, I have found defoliating twice in veg, hard, then at end of stretch has shown no ill effect other than making the veg period go a little bit longer. Hard stripping in veg gets more nodes and tighter nodes in my experience.

Hitting them hard at end of stretch gets light to all those new bud sites below the canopy. I remove fan leaves that have a stem. This is important. If it has a stem I can grab, the corresponding bud site will have enough leaf to live on it's own just fine.

In veg, just as k33ftr33zstates in the original defoliation thread, I have found that stripping a plant hard results in tons more fan leaf in just 1 week. It's unreal how fast they rebound and with a vengeance.

An important thing for folks to remember is that this technique is really geared towards the grower with limited space/plant counts. Lets face it, being able to surround a bunch of plants with vertical lighting and little if any height restrictions will generally always yield more per plant. Even if it's at the cost of grams per watt (though not always). But for the average medical grower at home this method is one of many that can increase yield substantially.

It also takes time to get it down. One won't learn how to do it overnight. It can easily take 4-5 grows or even more to nail it. Improvement and learning each grow is the goal. Each strains is different to some degree as well. Knowing your strain(s) well before attempting this method will result in a faster steeper learning curve as also.

I highly suggest downloading the pdf files in the original thread as this really nails down all the instructions and questions.

My last 4 plant grow yield was at 21oz under a 1k hps turned down to 750watts due to heat & time of year. I know I can do better and will.

 

[Bobbo4200]

 

[papaduc]

Gotta respectfully disagree that strippin the shit outta plants all at once during ANY part of the flower cycle is hands down NOT a good thing to advise folks to do regardless of your findings with your seed run and different phenotypic expression acting the same......

DHF, I hear what you're saying and I take your experience on board, but I think you misread my post. I haven't advised anyone to actually do that in this thread, or that it will increase yield etc. I'm only posting my experiences and they, and those of others, seem to differ from those who say defoliating had a majorly negative impact on their plant. Obviously individual plants mightn't react well to different techniques.

My plants were packed in, and normally I'd thin them out, but this time I kept them intact and defoliated. The results impressed me at the end. Is that the best way to grow? I wouldn't even say. Is there any such thing?

I couldn't say conclusively what I think about this whole subject. It's a lot more open ended than a lot of people seem to think and everyone's experiences seem to differ. It splits opinion, even between people on the same general side of the debate.

There's a lot more to learn and nobody, as yet, has been able to put forward a case winning statement backed up by hard facts, other than anecdotal evidence based on their own experience. That includes me.

I suppose there are many variables and lots of things come into play. I'll post more later when I've got time.

 

[Bassy59]

@papaduc, experience is not hard facts winning statements? Anecdotal, after multiple grows? I could be wrong, but me thimks you're asking for a article from a scientific lab or university as the only qualified truth. Yet would that be anecdotal too? Based on their experience.

I know you acknowledge defoliating works, for you. I'm just pointing out how we can sometimes over analyze and expect too much to be convinced.

I highly suggest looking at the original thread on the topic and download the pdf.

 

[papaduc]

I already have. And I've talked to you about it previously.

Understand the context of what I'm saying. I'm saying we're splitting hairs with regards the intricacies, the nuances of these techniques. I'm not making big statements is all. It's the original thread you're talking about which influenced me not just to give it a go, but to do so as aggressively as I did. It worked well. But there are more variables that some things just don't answer away.

A scientific test would not be anecdotal because it'd be a scientific test and the variables between two test subjects would be kept to a bare minimum and the results exact and specific. I haven't seen anything like that in the form of side by side testing. If you can link me to it, do.

The bottom line and the best way I can simplify my stance on this is to say there's more in the way of detail with regards the effect of certain techniques, still to be found out. If you, or anyone, disagrees, you're asserting we know all there is to know already. I don't think that's the case.

 

[Bassy59]

As you already know, few people will do side by side. And I mean in the sense that it's two different grow areas, using both techniques. Side by side just isn't doable for most. At least not properly.

HOWEVER, there has been numerous people that were in that original thread that kept detail records of their grows prior to using the technique. After trying it out, that saw very substantial improvements, using same strain and conditions, adding only defoliation.

It doesn't have to be a fuckin scientist that would probably disagree with everything we do already. We have tons of proof from years of experience around here and other forums/growers.

It shouldn't be discounted as non-evidential.

 

[EclipseFour20]

Reminds me of an accounting joke...Ten accountants in the room and the question is, "how much will this cost me?". You will get 9 different answers...with the 10th accountant asking "how much do you want it to be?".

Same thing here...each grower has a different response to the same question, but there are common threads in many answers.

Cheers!

 

[papaduc]

It doesn't have to be a fuckin scientist that would probably disagree with everything we do already. We have tons of proof from years of experience around here and other forums/growers.

It shouldn't be discounted as non-evidential.

I never said it wasn't evidence. I said it wasn't conclusive. This isn't even an argument about defoliation at this point, it's a question about what qualifies as real exact evidence.

Like I said before, if you can link me to it, you should. You should put it in here. No matter what our opinions are on this - and I don't exactly disagree with anything you've put forward regarding defoliation, please take that on board - that kind of info doesn't seem to exist.

We've got everything we need to yield as much info and data as most field studies of most crops of most types. But we don't have "tons" of information. Not relatively.

For every debate like this, for every 514 posts in a 35 page thread, there might be one really eye opening side by side trial which proves, or goes some way to proving something conclusively.

Like you say

Side by side just isn't doable for most. At least not properly.

So what's left?
Your opinion... and mine... and his
Another thread about how many other people swear by a method and how they noticed a difference between this time and last time..... but then Dr. Fever puts in exactly the same case... with pictures and a thousand words... swearing blind you're wrong.

You can't blame anyone for wanting some real shit to cut through the conjecture.

 

[Bassy59]

Dr Fever swears everyone not doing it his way is wrong. Get used to it. Dr. Fever has also never used this method as described in the original thread. https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=174163.

I've pulled 12oz from a single plant in a 4 plant grow in a 5x5 tent. I don't have pictures on this site nor in my computer anymore. I do on another site.

Allow me to quote the pdf file from the first post in that thread from Delta9x: Post #980
Evidence of the benefits of defoliation, as if this thread doesnt have enough as it is. See post for pics.
Funny post to, D9.
hey, everybody! here's a few shot's of an "unimpressive" plant. this was grown in the "i don't know why
anyone growing vertical would even try this" style.
defoliated totally at 21 days flower.
the plants been whacked and is in a 5 gal bucket of water for the night.
wet trimmed bud
dry bud in container. notice the container has a 2.5 gal capacity.
it has been dried to the point where large bud stems snap.
it weighs 418 grams or 14.74 oz's
now i realize that this is not proof of anything. i could be lying.
this is really complicating my life, now i have to get help carrying all this extra weight around.
the last 3 plants were 11.96, 12.45, and now 14.74 oz's totalling 39.15 oz's or averaging 13.05 each. all
defoliated. the three largest plants i've ever grown.
ya'll have a good 'un,

And again from Delta9x: Post #1169
i just weighed last weeks plant and it only went 15.80. i guess i screwed up somewhere.
so my last five consecutive defoliated plants went 11.96, 12.35, 14.74, 18.38, and 15.80 for a total of 73.23
or an average of 14.65 each.
my last 5 plants before defoliation averaged 10.49, or 52.45 total oz's.
a total difference of 20.78 or 4.16 zips per plant.
i have been doing a series of changes over the last year to drive up yield and this one, defoliating, has made
the largest difference.
at this point i'll stop posting pics and weight here as i think i have proven this technique.
thanks k33ftr33z!

Imho, posts like those qualify as evidence far more so than Dr.Fever whom vehemently denies the validity of such yet refuses to even try the method using the described parameters.

 

[Chevy cHaze]

Hey guys,
as interesting as this thread has been to follow, am I the only one feeling it's not moving anywhere ?
I guess whoever still negclects defoliation completely at this point, should just get off the thread.
everyone who agrees that it works ( no matter if strain dependent or in generall or at what rate): let's share our experiences and data.
WE don't need further evaluation if or if it doesn't works, because we know it DOES.
Everyone who has given it a shot with the right mindset will have to agree.
If you don't, well come back when you have some experience or just follow the thread. Not trying to chase anyone away at all !
At this point i think it would be great to see people report on what they do to what strain at what time to sort of increase our pool of knowledge. And just sing along: E-vry strain is diff-rent, e-vry strain is fine !
Now let's boogie.

Seriously, there's a great number of guys on this thread who have great knowledge of the subject, and I'm just saying we should make the most out of it.

All aspects of defo are especially relevant for my current style of growing, as I happen to grow in very limited space( that includes height) and I want to get the best out of my plants. Defo, amongst other techniques is a key tool for me to keep the ladies in check and make the most out of the given space in terms of buds !

In my last run I had a northern lights plant that didn't seem to mind any defo done to her, no matter at what stage. Simultaneously I grew two jack flash cuts in the same cab, and man where they beeing little princesses when it came to defo...I pretty much fucked it up in terms of yield, yet this is such a great strain, that I WANT this to work, even if she stretches like hell and I only have very limited headroom. Defoliation as well as LST and the SCROG style have become mandatory for me.
Check my signature, if you will. I'm growing jack flash again, just because I want to see how I can master defo and all the other techniques with this plant and grow her right under my conditions even if she acts like a lady on interrupt. I want those juicy, fruity hazy buds so bad, I have to master this somehow!
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]


Let's share, compare and evolve together. It's not about IF anymore, it's just about HOW. And let's try and back everything with GOOD photos. If the gang here on IC can't tell the difference between two plants maybe it's not that big after all...

Take care guys and keep g(r)oing

 

[EclipseFour20]

...For every debate like this, for every 514 posts in a 35 page thread, there might be one really eye opening side by side trial which proves, or goes some way to proving something conclusively....You can't blame anyone for wanting some real shit to cut through the conjecture.

Side by side experiments...best ones are the ones you do yourself.

My environment is not the same as yours, my routine is not the same, my grow medium is not the same, my bacteria/microherd is not the same, my strains are not the same, and my end product is not the same....so--IMHO, the only thing my side-by-side experiment would prove is, it either works or does not work for me.

No conclusive "evidence", just more "conjecture".

Said differently, just because it worked for me--does not mean it will work for you; all things are not "universal".

Cheers!

 

[coolbud]

i really passed 35 pages ??? shit....DrFever these guys are kicking your ass , you seem to be a hard headed person.i never defoliated just because people who were growing longer then me told me not to , till i bought my lemon skunk....oh boy.I started defoliating in the vegetative stage , defoliated 4 plants every 7 - 10 days , that really helped a lot since i was planning to scrog em (my tent is 60x60x160) and guess what man , i'm in the 3th week of flowering and i never ever in my life had so many tops.So much useless talk in this thread ... only if growers would be more interested in trying the damn techniques on their own without asking all types of questions.
Start defoliating in the vegetative stage 2 3 4 times , switch it and after the 2 weeks stretch start plucking as other members said , first start with the tops because thats the main concern then go down till you take ALL THE LEAFS OUT!yeah you heard me , gradual defoliation does the trick.
With that being said , you should just start doing it yourself and stop arguing.
Best wishes.

 

[EclipseFour20]

Allow me to toss another log on the fire: Leaf canopy recovery.

How many times have we "over-pruned" an outdoor plant/tree and then discover weeks later an abundance of new growth?

My theory is, a plant requires a certain amount of "leaf canopy" for it's needs and will replenish it when there is a deficit (natural leaf senescence, damage from leaf crunchers, over-pruning, defoilation by stoners, etc), or simply stated--will "strive to maintain an equilibrium".

Example, lets say a plant produces a leaf that is 1 sq inch and requires 100 of these leaves for it's "equilibrium", should 20 leaves be removed (20%) then the plant's response will include:
1. Continue to maintain the canopy of leaves (normal business)
2. Continue to grow new branches and leaves (normal business)
3. Immediately generate new growth to replace the 20 lost leaves (recovery)

Maybe this explains why healthy plants respond positively to defoilation (losing 1-5% of their leaves a week) and respond with an abundance of new foliage...whereas unhealthy plants respond negatively. You might say....an unhealthy plants that started off with 75 leaves instead (instead of 100) will not respond well when 15-20 leaves are removed, as it never had an adequate leaf canopy to start with.

So in addition to genetics, environment, style of training (scrog, net, bending, lolloping, etc), we should probably add the variable "plant health" to the "leaf canopy"/defoliation debate.

Don't think we need any science or "side-by-side experiments" for this one--I think we all seen how plants respond to "accidents"....the healthy ones usually bounce back immediately while sick ones do their "lock up" thing.

Cheers!