-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Scientific evidence for selective DEFOLIATION
- Thread starter Squidbilly
- Start date
Cat...thanks for proving my point.
First, the hay taste you refer to in your weed, is a result of inadequate dry/curing--nothing to do with defoliation. Please research what causes the hay taste/flavor/aroma in weed; not interested in teaching Weed Dry/Curing 101 classes today.
Now, let me hold your hand and respond to your counterpoints--
1. Increasing the photosynthesis can result in increase growth, which equates to higher yield (you can google this one too...one for one)!
2. When there is an increase in Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Silica in plant tissue as a result of plant metabolism--not from adding these element, that means less inputs are required to satisfy the plant's needs. (I like saving $$$, two for two).
3. Decrease in leave carbohydrates can result in reduced growth--especially flower formation. So be careful in flower--but most people defoliate during the vegetative growth to encourage more branches...(I view this as a "good to know", but I will give you this one...two out of three for me, and 1 out 3 for you.)
4. Increase in Brix and Light is good (period)....(That makes three out of four for me).
5. Decrease in stem size...but is eliminated with Nitrogen, which is needed during vegetative growth--which is when we defoliate...(Four out of five for me.)
6. Most fruit bearing plants/trees produce "more by weight"--if about 25-33% of the buds are removed. Less is best in these cases (maybe not for cannabis), but in all cases, carbohydrate level during flower formation is super important (period). Yes, timing is everything...and knowing when to do things is the key!...(Five for six).
7. We agree that opening up the canopy is good (but be careful of your timing--before or after flower formation...not during this important formation period)----see you learned something!....lol, we both win this one. (Six of seven for me...and 2 out of 7 for you).
8. 25% defoliation did not effect yield. That is important, if a plant can produce the same harvest with less leaves--that means less inputs are required to feed the plant (less leaves due to defoliation). Same yield, less leaves, more light, increased air flow (less chance for PM), less input$...got it? (Seven of eight).
9. So why defoliate? Like most people, I did a test and experienced first hand what the benefits and issues were for my plants, in my garden (environment). Rather than argue theory--let me put in plain words....bigger buds, greater weight, and 10-15% less inputs were required (water, ferts/nutes/zymes/bacteria), probably cuz there are fewer mouths to feed (leaves).
Yep...do research the hay thing, it will help you in future discussions.
Cheers man!
First, the hay taste you refer to in your weed, is a result of inadequate dry/curing--nothing to do with defoliation. Please research what causes the hay taste/flavor/aroma in weed; not interested in teaching Weed Dry/Curing 101 classes today.
Now, let me hold your hand and respond to your counterpoints--
1. Increasing the photosynthesis can result in increase growth, which equates to higher yield (you can google this one too...one for one)!
2. When there is an increase in Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Silica in plant tissue as a result of plant metabolism--not from adding these element, that means less inputs are required to satisfy the plant's needs. (I like saving $$$, two for two).
3. Decrease in leave carbohydrates can result in reduced growth--especially flower formation. So be careful in flower--but most people defoliate during the vegetative growth to encourage more branches...(I view this as a "good to know", but I will give you this one...two out of three for me, and 1 out 3 for you.)
4. Increase in Brix and Light is good (period)....(That makes three out of four for me).
5. Decrease in stem size...but is eliminated with Nitrogen, which is needed during vegetative growth--which is when we defoliate...(Four out of five for me.)
6. Most fruit bearing plants/trees produce "more by weight"--if about 25-33% of the buds are removed. Less is best in these cases (maybe not for cannabis), but in all cases, carbohydrate level during flower formation is super important (period). Yes, timing is everything...and knowing when to do things is the key!...(Five for six).
7. We agree that opening up the canopy is good (but be careful of your timing--before or after flower formation...not during this important formation period)----see you learned something!....lol, we both win this one. (Six of seven for me...and 2 out of 7 for you).
8. 25% defoliation did not effect yield. That is important, if a plant can produce the same harvest with less leaves--that means less inputs are required to feed the plant (less leaves due to defoliation). Same yield, less leaves, more light, increased air flow (less chance for PM), less input$...got it? (Seven of eight).
9. So why defoliate? Like most people, I did a test and experienced first hand what the benefits and issues were for my plants, in my garden (environment). Rather than argue theory--let me put in plain words....bigger buds, greater weight, and 10-15% less inputs were required (water, ferts/nutes/zymes/bacteria), probably cuz there are fewer mouths to feed (leaves).
Yep...do research the hay thing, it will help you in future discussions.
Cheers man!
Last edited:
^ lots of good points which oppose the need to defoliate. nice.
eclipse im glad you have done some experiments but 10%-15% is gonna be inconclusive either way in mj growing. that's 2oz to the 20oz. and tbh, you can run the same clone, in the same room 10 times and never get the same yield. theres far to many other factors involved.
look at it another way..imagine you have 5 plants under a 1k and get 22oz compeared to the usual 20oz (eg 10%) , that's gonna be 11.2g extra per plant. I can get that swing in yield keeping variables the same and running one cut mono. plus, how do you know that the 20oz you were getting originally was optimum for your conditions? for example you may have been using an area which was over crowded, in which case defoliation may well increase the yield. the original techniques/methods may have been floored somehow or whatever else. also, how do you know 100% that the quality wasn't effected unless it was tested?
im not discrediting you nor is this post only directed at you. but if people want to look at this in any kind of scientific way, it needs to be critiqued as such. if its gonna be tested properly it needs to be tested say leaf surface area compared to finished yield, in identical conditions side by side with plant of equal size, root mass, stalk width etc with one strain grown over and over for conclusive results. plus comparisons to fruit trees is gonna be weak evidence, the obvious reason being that buds are not fruit. ive still yet to see any pics of defoliated plants out yielding non-defoliated. it seems so far that there isn't much evidence at all.
look at it another way..imagine you have 5 plants under a 1k and get 22oz compeared to the usual 20oz (eg 10%) , that's gonna be 11.2g extra per plant. I can get that swing in yield keeping variables the same and running one cut mono. plus, how do you know that the 20oz you were getting originally was optimum for your conditions? for example you may have been using an area which was over crowded, in which case defoliation may well increase the yield. the original techniques/methods may have been floored somehow or whatever else. also, how do you know 100% that the quality wasn't effected unless it was tested?
im not discrediting you nor is this post only directed at you. but if people want to look at this in any kind of scientific way, it needs to be critiqued as such. if its gonna be tested properly it needs to be tested say leaf surface area compared to finished yield, in identical conditions side by side with plant of equal size, root mass, stalk width etc with one strain grown over and over for conclusive results. plus comparisons to fruit trees is gonna be weak evidence, the obvious reason being that buds are not fruit. ive still yet to see any pics of defoliated plants out yielding non-defoliated. it seems so far that there isn't much evidence at all.
R
rüdiger
I think its simple. Thats my way to look the plant:
The plant is living organism. Living organism has organs.
Plant has(simple): leaves, roots, stem and when she is in generative phase flowers.
The female cannabis plant stores as much energy as possible in her (fan) leaves when she grows(vegetativ).
She doesn't do that to make herself green and sexy, no, she bunkers nutrients and sugars for later on.
She keeps this behavior till the first weeks(strain depending) of flowering(generativ).
When the stretch has stopped and the budsites appear, its like a trigger in her. She concentrates the flow of nutrition towards the flowers and slowly but sure depletes the fan leaves of the stored energy,starting from below.
As the energy(nutrients) stored in fan leaves, is much more faster available to the flowers than everything else(its in the plant allready not in your fertilizer bottle), you dont want to take her natural turbochargers off.
Its all about the N(nitrate) cycle in the plant.
And it does not work when you overfeed(N).
So in the end she defoliates herself without any loss of energy!
beautiful, ah?
I think some may have forgotten certain traits mother nature gave this species.
The fans are very important for evaporation and therefore heat-control in the plant.
so you 'defoliateurs' better wrap in plastic and lay down in full sun before talkin mukumuku again.
rüdiger (and sorry for bad english)
The plant is living organism. Living organism has organs.
Plant has(simple): leaves, roots, stem and when she is in generative phase flowers.
The female cannabis plant stores as much energy as possible in her (fan) leaves when she grows(vegetativ).
She doesn't do that to make herself green and sexy, no, she bunkers nutrients and sugars for later on.
She keeps this behavior till the first weeks(strain depending) of flowering(generativ).
When the stretch has stopped and the budsites appear, its like a trigger in her. She concentrates the flow of nutrition towards the flowers and slowly but sure depletes the fan leaves of the stored energy,starting from below.
As the energy(nutrients) stored in fan leaves, is much more faster available to the flowers than everything else(its in the plant allready not in your fertilizer bottle), you dont want to take her natural turbochargers off.
Its all about the N(nitrate) cycle in the plant.
And it does not work when you overfeed(N).
So in the end she defoliates herself without any loss of energy!
beautiful, ah?
I think some may have forgotten certain traits mother nature gave this species.
The fans are very important for evaporation and therefore heat-control in the plant.
so you 'defoliateurs' better wrap in plastic and lay down in full sun before talkin mukumuku again.
rüdiger (and sorry for bad english)
It is hard to debate my "experience" against "theory"--as theorist start their argument with "what if" (hypothetical).
My 10-15% increase in yield is based on comparing apples to apples (prior harvest total weight compared to other harvests). I run 15 plants at a time and it is easy to compare total weight from each harvest; so when Option A yields just over 3 lbs and Option B brings home just over 2.6+ lbs (but never exceeding 3 lbs)--which option would you run with? Why the increase--many things, but one difference I noticed is the increase in branching and bud sites on the branches where the main fan leaf was removed.
It was explained to me that plants incorporate many defense mechanisms to insure their survival--farmers/scientists realize about 25% of the leaves are "insurance" against leaf crunchers, disease, etc, and can be removed from most plants without reducing/effecting it's harvest. So, if plants have excess leaves (for insurance)--then the leaves that are to be defoliated are "insurance leaves"--leaving behind the "meat and potato" leaves (ones required for the plant to thrive).
So this old man's rationale is--if I don't have leaf crunchers in my garden, if my plants have access to all their nutrients, if my yield can increase without affecting quality--why not remove the "insurance leaves"?
Put differently, if removing 20-25% of fan leaves on your plant diminishes it's yield--then maybe your plant is not as healthy as most (inadequate source-sink relationship)...since most every other plant in nature can shed 25% of their leaves without any ill effect.
If a plant lost one leaf and it's health diminished proportionally...(ten leaves and 10x the reduction in health, 20 leaves--20x) then this would be a different story with a different ending--but science does not support this line of reasoning...it is not a "net zero game" in the plant kingdom.
Not saying I am right or that person is wrong, rather I am citing my experiences and comparing them to science--and it makes sense to me. If it does not make sense to you...that's OK--as there really is no "right way" or "wrong way" to grow, just different techniques.
Cheers!
My 10-15% increase in yield is based on comparing apples to apples (prior harvest total weight compared to other harvests). I run 15 plants at a time and it is easy to compare total weight from each harvest; so when Option A yields just over 3 lbs and Option B brings home just over 2.6+ lbs (but never exceeding 3 lbs)--which option would you run with? Why the increase--many things, but one difference I noticed is the increase in branching and bud sites on the branches where the main fan leaf was removed.
It was explained to me that plants incorporate many defense mechanisms to insure their survival--farmers/scientists realize about 25% of the leaves are "insurance" against leaf crunchers, disease, etc, and can be removed from most plants without reducing/effecting it's harvest. So, if plants have excess leaves (for insurance)--then the leaves that are to be defoliated are "insurance leaves"--leaving behind the "meat and potato" leaves (ones required for the plant to thrive).
So this old man's rationale is--if I don't have leaf crunchers in my garden, if my plants have access to all their nutrients, if my yield can increase without affecting quality--why not remove the "insurance leaves"?
Put differently, if removing 20-25% of fan leaves on your plant diminishes it's yield--then maybe your plant is not as healthy as most (inadequate source-sink relationship)...since most every other plant in nature can shed 25% of their leaves without any ill effect.
If a plant lost one leaf and it's health diminished proportionally...(ten leaves and 10x the reduction in health, 20 leaves--20x) then this would be a different story with a different ending--but science does not support this line of reasoning...it is not a "net zero game" in the plant kingdom.
Not saying I am right or that person is wrong, rather I am citing my experiences and comparing them to science--and it makes sense to me. If it does not make sense to you...that's OK--as there really is no "right way" or "wrong way" to grow, just different techniques.
Cheers!
I think its simple. Thats my way to look the plant:
The plant is living organism. Living organism has organs.
Plant has(simple): leaves, roots, stem and when she is in generative phase flowers.
The female cannabis plant stores as much energy as possible in her (fan) leaves when she grows(vegetativ).
She doesn't do that to make herself green and sexy, no, she bunkers nutrients and sugars for later on.
She keeps this behavior till the first weeks(strain depending) of flowering(generativ).
When the stretch has stopped and the budsites appear, its like a trigger in her. She concentrates the flow of nutrition towards the flowers and slowly but sure depletes the fan leaves of the stored energy,starting from below.
As the energy(nutrients) stored in fan leaves, is much more faster available to the flowers than everything else(its in the plant allready not in your fertilizer bottle), you dont want to take her natural turbochargers off.
Its all about the N(nitrate) cycle in the plant.
And it does not work when you overfeed(N).
So in the end she defoliates herself without any loss of energy!
beautiful, ah?
I think some may have forgotten certain traits mother nature gave this species.
The fans are very important for evaporation and therefore heat-control in the plant.
so you 'defoliateurs' better wrap in plastic and lay down in full sun before talkin mukumuku again.
yup very true, il had that fans are important in nutrient uptake, as the water vaper is released from fans, more water/nutrients are drawn in from the roots. so nutrient intake will be slowed but removing leaves.
My grow method is my own version of hydro- top feed with Hydro Halo rings 34 seconds/45 minutes during lights on
Root medium is various size polished ornamental rocks, so fast draining but sufficient moisture between feedings
I defoliate ~ 25%. Seems to stimulate more lower branch development
Also, as mentioned, makes for better air circulation, and buds get more light energy
Both under the same light feeding from the same nutes
Pistils are a tad dry. I failed to get a pond fogger early on. finally ordered one. Should be here soon
ALSO, will be replacing my 432w hot5 with a BML SYYDR600 led by Friday
Pics 1-2 are ~ 14 days from first pistils
Pic 3-4 are different pheno, ~ 7 days behind from first pistil. I have defoliated less
View attachment 267677 View attachment 267678
View attachment 267679 View attachment 267680
Root medium is various size polished ornamental rocks, so fast draining but sufficient moisture between feedings
I defoliate ~ 25%. Seems to stimulate more lower branch development
Also, as mentioned, makes for better air circulation, and buds get more light energy
Both under the same light feeding from the same nutes
Pistils are a tad dry. I failed to get a pond fogger early on. finally ordered one. Should be here soon
ALSO, will be replacing my 432w hot5 with a BML SYYDR600 led by Friday
Pics 1-2 are ~ 14 days from first pistils
Pic 3-4 are different pheno, ~ 7 days behind from first pistil. I have defoliated less
View attachment 267677 View attachment 267678
View attachment 267679 View attachment 267680
what you said rings true... plants are designed to survive and thrive leaf eating animals dispite damage done. not because of damage done.
like I said before a full proof scientific experiment isn't as easy as comparing two methods and making a judgement, it needs to be a fair test were every variable is the same for both tests. which is near on impossible for most smaller scale growers.
you mentioned the plant suffering proportionally to removing leaves. I think most definitely that removing one leaf wont make much difference because of the small percentage of mass that one leaf may constitute. but when you put it into measurable amount say removing 25%, 50%,75% etc, you will probably see a proportional difference in recovery time. but like I said before, your 10-15% isn't conclusive scientifically. you might be over crowding the non defoliated plants. therefore your results might be better by defoliating. it might be the case that if you were growing the un defoliated plants properly, that they may well out yield your defo grows.
not saying that's the case but its a variable you have to consider.
it might be that your defo fairs better than your no-defo becaue you have not dialled it in right.
if on the other hand if your non defo plants were producing amazing results, then you tried defoliation and were hitting 25% extra per grow, it would be much more conclusive.
eg to call defoliation a method for optimum yield, you would already need to be getting an optimum yield without. which many growers do. if theres growers hitting higher weights that you without defoliating, then it would be clear that the reasons go beyond defoliating.
leaves are effectively the plants lungs. pores on the leaves are where gas exchange happens. it kind defeats the object to improve air circulation for leaves, then chop them off.
R
rüdiger
'eg to call defoliation a method for optimum yield, you would already need to be getting an optimum yield without. which many growers do. if theres growers hitting higher weights that you without defoliating, then it would be clear that the reasons go beyond defoliating.'
ah talkin about non defoliated high density sog.
or in other words, the way the shit is done.
start your experiments!
ah talkin about non defoliated high density sog.
or in other words, the way the shit is done.
start your experiments!
Sift...same nutrition, same environment, same genetics (ran that particular strain 2+ years and if I failed to have it dialed in by then...shame on me), same everything except--20-25% defoliation.
These are my observations and never suggested they were "full proof scientific experiment", just said Option A (3 lbs) ...vs Option B (2.6 lbs)--I am going with Option A.
Also....I said 25% defoliation, science says 25%, farmers say 25%--there is no effect; nobody is talking 50%-75% (except the theorists).
If you don't think 10-15% is significant or "conclusive scientific"--then that is your opinion. But in most every other "world" a 10% change (either plus or negative) is significant. Even in the world of "statistics" 2-5% can be "significant"--and it also can be "margin of error"--so it depends on what you are measuring.
Annual impact. So lets do simple hypothetical math--6 harvests per year, Option A provides just under half pound more...6 x 1/2 pound = 3 pounds. So, 2-3 pound bonus per year at $3k per unit is $6000-9000 per year....($5000-7500 per year if sold at $2500). I thinks those are significant dollars--if you don't think so, that's fine! Got any spare $$ you can share with me? LOL.
10% here, 5% here, 15% here--yep, when examined individually, they may not be "ground breaking news" worthy of a "hoot and holler", but when viewed together, having a total of 30% increase can be "sweet". BTW, what fool said "defoliation is a method for optimum yield"? LOL...those words did not emanate from me; rather defoliation is just one tool I use to increase my yield a few basis points...like 10-15%--and there is science to support my conclusions...where is your science?
Cheers!
These are my observations and never suggested they were "full proof scientific experiment", just said Option A (3 lbs) ...vs Option B (2.6 lbs)--I am going with Option A.
Also....I said 25% defoliation, science says 25%, farmers say 25%--there is no effect; nobody is talking 50%-75% (except the theorists).
If you don't think 10-15% is significant or "conclusive scientific"--then that is your opinion. But in most every other "world" a 10% change (either plus or negative) is significant. Even in the world of "statistics" 2-5% can be "significant"--and it also can be "margin of error"--so it depends on what you are measuring.
Annual impact. So lets do simple hypothetical math--6 harvests per year, Option A provides just under half pound more...6 x 1/2 pound = 3 pounds. So, 2-3 pound bonus per year at $3k per unit is $6000-9000 per year....($5000-7500 per year if sold at $2500). I thinks those are significant dollars--if you don't think so, that's fine! Got any spare $$ you can share with me? LOL.
10% here, 5% here, 15% here--yep, when examined individually, they may not be "ground breaking news" worthy of a "hoot and holler", but when viewed together, having a total of 30% increase can be "sweet". BTW, what fool said "defoliation is a method for optimum yield"? LOL...those words did not emanate from me; rather defoliation is just one tool I use to increase my yield a few basis points...like 10-15%--and there is science to support my conclusions...where is your science?
Cheers!
Last edited:
Buds don't need direct light. That erroneous claim killed more than a few defoliation discussions. Removing leaves to get more light energy to the plant is factually scientifically botanically and logically incorrect. Leaves are the only 'sources', flowers, branches, roots and buds are 'sinks'.
Google Images search for 'hennepkwekerij'. As Rudiger put so nicely, that's the way shit is done, growing quantity in a limited space that is.
Exactly, something I've been trying to convey in similar discussions. I can think of several situation in which it's better to remove a few leaves, but those are ALL situations that should have been avoided if maximum yield with a given number of plants and limited space was the goal in the first place.
Google Images search for 'hennepkwekerij'. As Rudiger put so nicely, that's the way shit is done, growing quantity in a limited space that is.
Got this as a rep comment, which makes it a little hard to reply, which I assume was the reason it was posted as a rep comment in the first place. Discussing something doesn't work that way, and plants do not operate that way either. Your popcorn argument is invalid. I've done more than a few grows and always pack it full, I've had runs with less than 0.5% popcorn in which one plant was covered for 50% by another. Plenty of pics available upon request of varying strains from indica to sativa.Anonymous said:
Packing it too tight causes plants to stretch more than usual (Neighbor Detection), auxins, genetics, improper nutrient ratios, lower than for photosynthesis optimal temperatures below a canopy, and yes, removing leaves, is what causes popcorn.
Leaves->Photosynthesis-> Photosynthate (energy stored in the form of sugars) -> flowers/stems/buds/new growth i.e. ALL cellular processes. Direct light on buds doesn't create more 'oils and size', an abundant amount of healthy leaves results in both more quality and quantity. The less you mess with a plant, the more closer you will come to its genetic limitation.
I posted that...it was my way to communicate privately (and reward you with a rep point) while not hogging up the thread (trolls do that).
But your argument proves my point. But first, let's answer your real question. What is the cause of popcorn buds as it relates to light/wave spectrum? Too much light? Not enough? Some where in between? I say not enough light.
Your words: "Packing it too tight causes plants to stretch more than usual (Neighbor Detection), auxins, genetics, improper nutrient ratios, lower than for photosynthesis..."
So lets examine the cause/relationship--of photosynthesis and the effects of packing too tight. If plants/buds are packed too tight, a layering effect of sorts is the result--where only the buds on top (top layer) receive direct light . The middle layer receives both minimal direct light and indirect light aka known as "reflective light" (diminished light spectrum). The bottom layer receives only "reflective light". Agree?
So, let me ask you two questions:
Why is it only the buds in top layer are fully developed/matured, while the buds in the middle and lower levels are not as well developed and immature?
Comparing SOG style of growing vs traditional (plants spaced a part without netting or trellising), in measuring the number of buds receiving direct light, which style of growing has higher ratio of buds to direct light?
Finally, please direct us to any science/studies to back up your claim that "buds don't need direct light"--as that is contrary to everything I have been taught/experienced--I thought the main factors affecting rate of photosynthesis are light intensity, carbon dioxide concentration and temperature. I was taught the more photons of light that fall on a leaf, the greater the number of chlorophyll molecules that are converted...and as light intensity is increased to the max (very high light intensity), chlorophyll may be damaged and the rate drops steeply...aka leaf burn. So too much direct light is no bueno, not enough is no bueno, but the right amount--is heaven.
I would love to read what you have...funny, I thought I was rather current and up to date regarding plant photosynthesis (aka bud development).
So...please back up your claim with some science, that way we all can learn why "buds don't need direct light"!
Cheers!
Last edited:
man what do you mean where is my science? have you read my posts?
the science im going with is simple... lets list it.
more leaves:
*higher water and nutrient uptake for increased growth
*higher rate of respiration
*higher rate of photosynthesis
*higher rate of respiration at night (when light is not a variable)
these in my mind are essential for optimum yield and quality.
btw.. the defoliation/higher yield comment was in relation to the last thread about this subject really. I can see the obvious points your making, over a year ''it adds up'' but we are talking science here, not about finance. im glad you have increased your output. that's always a good thing. have you tried cutting back numbers when you grow without defoliating? you might have the same results? lastly do you have any comparison pics?
lastly.. you say that lower buds are smaller because they get less light- which I agree with to a point. but there are some strains which prefer lower light levels to yield best (gsc for example). plus ive got pictures of buds which are In the shade but are frosty tight nugs. I use other lst techniques to get a high yield rather than defoliate.
Bottom line.
"do you have any comparison pics?"
Even just 4 plants, 2 unmolested and the other 2 hacked to your liking.
That would be more "science" than I've seen in this misnamed thread so far.
I keep seeing scraggly, leafless, branches covered with what I call popcorn buds from top to bottom.
Proudly displayed as proof of concept?
Without a "control" set, that looks worse, or better, it is just a picture of a plant an proves nothing but camera ownership.
So, who wants to be the first "believer" to offer actual proof of the the benefits claimed for defoliation?
One set defoliated, one set left au natural.
Show me!
I'm all eyes.
Aloha,
Weeze
"do you have any comparison pics?"
Even just 4 plants, 2 unmolested and the other 2 hacked to your liking.
That would be more "science" than I've seen in this misnamed thread so far.
I keep seeing scraggly, leafless, branches covered with what I call popcorn buds from top to bottom.
Proudly displayed as proof of concept?
Without a "control" set, that looks worse, or better, it is just a picture of a plant an proves nothing but camera ownership.
So, who wants to be the first "believer" to offer actual proof of the the benefits claimed for defoliation?
One set defoliated, one set left au natural.
Show me!
I'm all eyes.
Aloha,
Weeze
So, who wants to be the first "believer" to offer actual proof of the the benefits claimed for defoliation?
One set defoliated, one set left au natural.
Show me!
I'm all eyes.
Aloha,
Weeze
Lets change it up
same song and dance over and over
thread after thread
I nominate Weezard to do the testing...
you can be the first non believer to offer some proof. that it does, or doesnt hold value. you've never done it right? so try something new?
you up for the "challenge"?
you do like to experiment right?
Science? I refer to the pdfs I posted earlier; those are proper laboratory experiments with control groups, the procedure is explained, and outcomes are quantified (plant weight, foliage counts, fruit size, yield, etc). But most important, if the experiment is repeated, the new tester would obtain similar results. That is the type of "science" that most of us advanced growers respect and appreciate. Things like "stoner logic" (which sorry to say is all that you have provided thus far) and "bro-science" may be fun to cite, but unfortunately they usually amount to nothing more than "anecdotal evidence" (no bueno).
Lastly, if you are going to debate from a "theorist" perspective (which you are), then IMHO, your strongest hand should not be some crazy babble that includes google pics of my friends garden--rather slam your opponent with irrefutable evidence; I guarantee you will walk away a winner every time.
Perhaps the only reason why you are unable to link/cut & paste to any "science" that "buds don't need direct light", is because.....hmmm, none exist?
If I had an opportunity to slam a "know it all" that made some crazy claim (say...someone like me), then I would relish at the opportunity to make him eat his words. Merry christmas/happy birthday, cuz here is your opportunity.
Sorry dude, but you gotta do better than stoner logic to prove that "buds don't need direct light"!
BTW, I do appreciate your "youthful exuberance" but, IMHO its time to up your game a little.
Good luck!
can i play?
can i play?
i do not defoliate, crop, super crop or otherwise molest my plants. Only sick leaves are removed. The following 2 plants were veged ~ 45 days until they were 20" in height and placed into bloom room. ~ 70 days later they produced what is looking to be ~ 7 to 8 oz per plant.
defoliate away! i'll have none of it!
can i play?
i do not defoliate, crop, super crop or otherwise molest my plants. Only sick leaves are removed. The following 2 plants were veged ~ 45 days until they were 20" in height and placed into bloom room. ~ 70 days later they produced what is looking to be ~ 7 to 8 oz per plant.
defoliate away! i'll have none of it!
