Scientific evidence for selective DEFOLIATION

[Sativied]

Now, don't you look foolish?

Perhaps from your unique perspective...Posting how more light results in more photosynthesis isn't in any way a valid argument for your erroneous common misconception.

You and I obviously operate on a different level so there's probably little point in arguing with 'you' considering you think any of what you post are actually arguments for buds needing light (which they aren't). You post random general statements about photosynthesis but clearly miss the whole point: leaves are 'sources' ( which in botany means they perform photosynthesis and hence provide the sugars for the sinks) and buds are sinks (which means the product of photosynthesis is transported to it through the phloem). All leaves work for the entire plant (see link I posted earlier). Removing leaves to give other parts of the plants comes at a cost: removing the leaves that harvest the light in the first place. Buds form at the start of a petiole of a fan leaf for a good reason (vascular connections to a solar panel closeby), they belong to a set that has evolved through years of evolution. Buds, sugar leaves, contain some chloroplast allowing for some photosynthesis but aren't nearly as efficient as fan leaves - they factually do not need direct light to develop in perfect quality buds. They are there to protect the seeds, not to provide photosynthesis.

Oh and really... now 'you' are accusing others of personal attacks? Pot kettle mean anything to you... try sticking to the facts. Start by learning how a plant operates and what a 'bud' is.

 

[Cat Jockey]

One last thing...in my 60+ years of experiences, it has been my observation that when a debating opponent is unable to respond with facts or is void of logical arguments, they will usually resort to personal attacks and/or name calling; seems you ran out of facts rather fast and are unable to support your "opinions". Shame all you have are personal attacks.

Oh brother. So, in addition to the Self-Appointed Weed Guru, you are also one 'o dem practicing Internet Psychologist, thinking you can read my mind. And shit. Like thinking you know why I wasn't interested in talking 'facts' with you.

Ya know pa, I ain't seen near as many summers as you, as I am only 42 ... but I grew up out of that Internet Psychology bullshit years ago. It is presumptuous and irritating.

And easily chases away knowledge from threads ...

It ain't as complicated as you make it, dude. It is quite simply as simple as I put it:

Yer an arrogant douche, with whom I have zero desire to discuss such things, your perceived facts, or otherwise and precisely because of that arrogant douchebaggery - not because I am afraid of discussing any facts you are trying to apply to MJ.

Don't read anymore into that then that, Doc ...

It ain't just this thread, either. That's yer schtick I've seen in a couple threads.

So, dude, I really don't need any more friends and shakin' your hand, and shit, but you are more than welcome to join me over in the Infirmary forum, where there are rookie growers on their first grows asking for help from experienced farmers.

You've got this thread pretty jacked up at this point, but there are plenty of people over there that will willingly follow the advice of real experts, like you claim to be - an expert's expert.

Win Win. Newbie growers get help from someone that has done it a few times and you get to quit crying in your signature about people not blindly following your advice and worshipping you ...

As a final post script, that's where I'm headed, the Infirmary. Concerning the question posed of this thread, Sweet Lady Jane ain't a fuckin' grape vine. And a flower ain't a fruit, and people don't smoke grapes or make grape brownies. That doesn't mean a great many things are not the same and applicable amongst many species of plants, but PhDs, ain't looking for the same things in grapes after defoiliation that weed smokers are looking for.

How 'bout things like cannabinoid and terpene profiles? Pretty important thing. There are many variables that go into and affect those characteristics - what and how much of what chemical inside the plant matter being one of them, something you affect with wanton defoiliation 'cause you got a bug up yer ass.

Affect good or bad? I suspect bad. And nobody really KNOWS, 'cause no real controlled test has been performed - and would need to be done by a real deal digity dank farmer, not intermediate level. And then tested for things like THC content, etc.

And I would be open to results of such a test. But that ain't what you have here. You have some Internet Expert, patchwork 'scien-goddamned-tific absolute, inarguable fact cause I said so' going on, which is NOTHING like the type of test that needs to be done to determine whether growers want to start hacking HEALTHY, LIVING, PRODUCTIVE plant material off of their girls. Nor is your science, they way you bundled a whole bunch of unrealted studies on multiple species as absolute as you portray. Dude.

In the meantime, my ass is going with Mudder Fuggin' Mother Nature as a guide. And my own observations. Not you.

Ain't no cannabinoids in dem grapes, Pa. That's what I'm farmin' - lot's 'o juicy cannabinods and plump stalked capitate glands, with some health flower and leaf material for flavor and aromas.

But you INSIST defoiliation isgood, case closed, science settled. What a joke. For real done with yo' ass in this thread, and off to see if I can contribute positively to the community by trying to help some rookies work their way through some issues.

You are free to join me, but I'm sure you'll just stick around here, doin' yer thang, strokin' your ego and sig ...

 

[EclipseFour20]

So young whipper snapper, how about teaching us why defoliating makes weed taste like hay (your claim) instead of posting gibberish nonsense?...after all that is your "hay opinion"--without a smidgen of science...remember?

BTW, thanks for suggesting that I am a "weed guru", never thought of myself as a guru, lol; rather I am a perfectionist and blessed with decades of experience and willing to share what works for me--and unlike you, I don't judge the way others grow (especially--those that grow differently), as there are sooo many paths to the same destination!

So, buddy boy, if/when you discover some science that supports your opinions: like your silly unsubstantiated claim that hay taste/flavor in cannabis is not the result of poor curing--but as a result of defoliating (lol...never heard of such a thing...too funny), please climb out of the sand box, show us your science, and join us in a civil conversation of advanced cannabis growing. OK Dude?

 

[EclipseFour20]

Perhaps from your unique perspective...Posting how more light results in more photosynthesis isn't in any way a valid argument for your erroneous common misconception.

You and I obviously operate on a different level so there's probably little point in arguing with 'you' considering you think any of what you post are actually arguments for buds needing light (which they aren't). You post random general statements about photosynthesis but clearly miss the whole point: leaves are 'sources' ( which in botany means they perform photosynthesis and hence provide the sugars for the sinks) and buds are sinks (which means the product of photosynthesis is transported to it through the phloem). All leaves work for the entire plant (see link I posted earlier). Removing leaves to give other parts of the plants comes at a cost: removing the leaves that harvest the light in the first place. Buds form at the start of a petiole of a fan leaf for a good reason (vascular connections to a solar panel closeby), they belong to a set that has evolved through years of evolution. Buds, sugar leaves, contain some chloroplast allowing for some photosynthesis but aren't nearly as efficient as fan leaves - they factually do not need direct light to develop in perfect quality buds. They are there to protect the seeds, not to provide photosynthesis.

Oh and really... now 'you' are accusing others of personal attacks? Pot kettle mean anything to you... try sticking to the facts. Start by learning how a plant operates and what a 'bud' is.

You had your chance...I asked you to prove your point, you chose not too...but you went the personal attack route instead (boo hoo), and at the end of the day--you still have not established why "buds don't need direct light".

So let's recap---
1. You claim buds don't need direct light.
2. I challenged you and ask for some science.
3. Rather than providing evidence that "buds don't need direct light" you ask me to prove it instead. (Odd, that you want me to prove you are wrong--instead of you proving your own words).
4. Focusing on your word choice of "direct light" (which is a more intense light) and "indirect light" (opposite of "direct" light") is more reflective...a less intense light (which I assume you mean when you typed the words: "buds don't need direct light"...that indirect/reflective light would be preferred). And since we are talking bud growth/development (aka plant growth)--I cut and pasted a bunch of responses that have concluded intense light (aka "direct light"--not "indirect light") and photosynthesis are most important...and "reflective light" is not as good as "direct light".

If you wanted to talk about sink-source relationships, fine--but why change the subject from "buds don't need direct light" to "plants need leaves"? I never said the sink-source relationship is inconsequential...in fact I fully understand their relationship. I just said, "buds need direct light" or popcorn is the result--and then you say I am wrong--but offer no proof.

Got it? Now you really look silly!

 

[Greyskull]

more pictures
we can talk about the science later
lets just see what happens....

 

[EclipseFour20]

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....

.... 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....

...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. ....

For the record, these are not my words.

 

[Snow Crash]

Defoliation threads always turn into this kind of prattle.

My experiences allow me to continue to defoliate my plants with confidence. For my garden the best results come from a combination of topping, lollipopping, pinching, and directed defoliation. This is an opinion based purely on observations and it is specific to my genetics, setup, environment, and situation. Some plants perform better after a de-leafing, some do suffer. With respect to that, many of the blanket claims that have been presented here are well intentioned but very misguided and should be taken on a person-to-person basis.

What I have found is that when applied at the correct time, maybe a week or so before the flip to flowering, the plant responds to the loss of fan leafs from the main stock by encouraging more vegetative mass to arise from the new growths. That's my personal experience. I have experimented some but I know what I want and I know how to get there. This is how "I" choose to do it and I really hope that it doesn't offend anyone.

So really guys, I think we all know that leaf is important, but we all agree that plant training methods can improve your yield. There's a time and a place for all things and I'd like the community to be a little more open minded and a little less "I'm right and you're wrong." Different time and a different place we'd all burn one down together.

Be good.

 

[Weezard]

more pictures
we can talk about the science later
lets just see what happens....

What he said.

Patience, pictures, and aloha.
I'm here to learn.


Weeze

 

[Swampwater]

those big fan leaves are only suppliers when they are about 50-70% their final size, once they reach any bigger they are no longer the plants main source for energy, quite the opposite. They were made to produce energy for the new branch, once the branch is developed, it actually takes energy away from the bud at the top of it-it competes for food and the food reaches the that fan leaf first.

Interesting...

 

[zamzia]

Yet another thread I'm getting tired of reading because of bickering

 

[Crooked8]

Ill add this much.....i rape my plants. Never used to out of fear when i started out many years ago. As ive progressed, ive defoliated more. I defoliate in veg and flower. I defoliate twice in veg. Once around day 10-12 of veg and again as they get bigger to promote lateral branching growing vertically. Once i flower i give them time, weaving the tops into my trellis for a couple weeks. Once i hit week 5 i defoliate steadily, throughout flower until week 8. I typically see 1.75-2lbs per light with straight ogs. Im not changing a thing. I know from experience if i chose to not defoliate i would lose yield in a major way. Especially with og. Need to train them in veg and in flower a lot.

 

[Cat Jockey]

I know from experience if i chose to not defoliate i would lose yield in a major way.

That's a pretty strong statement. Out of curiosity, does that experience include a controlled side-by-side you could show us? When you used words like 'rape' and 'lose yield in a major way', it makes it sound pretty incontrovertible and that there is no room for discussion on the issue.

Ill add this much.....i rape my plants. Never used to out of fear when i started out many years ago. As ive progressed, ive defoliated more. I defoliate in veg and flower. I defoliate twice in veg. Once around day 10-12 of veg and again as they get bigger to promote lateral branching growing vertically. Once i flower i give them time, weaving the tops into my trellis for a couple weeks. Once i hit week 5 i defoliate steadily, throughout flower until week 8. I typically see 1.75-2lbs per light with straight ogs. Im not changing a thing.

Please, do not take this the wrong way, at all. Understand that with my experiences, I personally need to see an actual controlled experiment from a highly skilled farmer. (not at all making any comment on your skills, merely describing the stipulations of the test I would need to see to be swayed - controlled side-by-side in a very controlled growroom by a pretty experienced dude or dudette.)

I don't doubt your increased yields over the years, what I will question, as the absolute fact you present it, namely 'raping yer ladies gives you a major increase in yield', is the reason(s) for those increased yields. Perhaps there are other factors at work? A bunch of other little stuff you learned each grow and then applied to future crops?

Lot's of things to ask about for possible contributors to those increased yields over the years, aside from increased defoliation rates throughout the years. Don't sell yourself short - some of that increased yield is directly tied to your experience you gain with each crop. If you defoliated on your very first two or three grows, as much as you do now, you don't think you get the same harvest, in quantity or quality, do you?

'Cause your better at it now than you were when you, "Never used to out of fear when i started out many years ago." And, "As ive progressed, ive defoliated more.". As you and your experience have progressed, I'll bet the quality of your harvest has progressed, correct? And I would suggest much of that independent of defoliation rates.

It could be tied to a lot of things, like increased air exchange around more leaves if you remove some, with your particular setup, etc. You have dense canopy. Perhaps some removal of fan leaves in the canopy increases air flow enough that the airflow is the actual contributor, despite defoliation.

Which then leads to asking what would happen if that wasn't an issue, like your plants not as densely spaced, and undefoliated plants were spaced less densely for natural airflow, etc. That's why I personally need to see a well controlled, well thought out side-by-side to be persuaded about defoliation and at what rates.

I looked at a couple pics of your garden in a couple of the threads in your sig. If by raping yer ladies you are talking about removal of leaves like you do here:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=43829&pictureid=1050579

then you and I are in agreement about defoliating that stuff. You don't have a SOG, by any means, but you got a pretty good plant density in your trays and the SCRoG netting rollin' so that shit just doesn't get any light. And it is all pretty much that lime green, limp stuff. I've never done a real test on that, but I remove all of that stuff as well - the shit just looks like it is a drain on the system and is obviously plant matter that is not in any state of vigorous growth, merely clinging to life.

But, that lime green stuff is very specific to indoor gardens, 'cause a bazillion miles + the height of a MJ bush = pretty much the same bazillion miles, when it comes to the intensity of the sunlight at the top of the plant, compared to the bottom, when outdoors.

And defoliating that unnatural lime green stuff indoors to positive results does not mean that there is a biological mechanisim in Sweet Lady Jane that leads to fatter, denser, more potent buds, if you start whacking off a bunch of healthy, well lit, well ventilated plant material. That stuff ain't a product of Mother Nature's HPS in the sky - it is the product of the one element of an indoor grow environment where we can't play God.

And that lime green stuff doesn't really show up like that in vertically lit RDWC grows, but you suggest whacking a whole bunch of healthy, lush, vigorously growing, green plant matter off anyway, just as you do with the horizontally lit system you are growing with? That doing so will give a 'major' increase in yield?

And you suggest greenhouse and outdoor growers, who do not have any of that lime green stuff, nor do they have anywhere near as many plants per square foot that you do, and hence, no air circulation problem in the canopy, engage in defoliation at the rates you do?

Else all those folks will suffer a major decrease in harvest?

I personally do not think you have enough data to extrapolate such. And that is obviously just my opinion ...

 

[Snow Crash]

And that is obviously just my opinion ...

Hello Jockey,
I can respect that you need to see some kind of scientific study. A side by side equal comparison before you'll trust what the people who defoliate are saying.

I just really think you're going about it the wrong way.

Do it for yourself. It is what most of us have done. I didn't document every step of the process... although I bet I posted some pictures here of the "rape and rebound" I did to some plants.

A primary point for your message is: wouldn't the plants do better and grow larger with more gardening experience. And to a degree this is true. But in many ways, learning how to appropriately apply a defoliation program along with other training methods is part of that learning curve. They are connected and I think that in many ways this refutation you put forwards is actually a good example of how a gardener has experienced defoliation, and applied that experience to improve their grow. You look at it as you gained experience in other areas, but defoliation is not experience, so that cannot be why you plants got bigger. That's a false understanding.

Another outdoor gardener around here... and I really wish I could remember the name of the guy, had a grow a few summers ago in humboldt. The plants in his greenhouse were completely raped by a flock of birds looking for shelter from a spring rain shower. He was distraught, but after just a few days the tops and branches that remained exploded with new growth and he said he'd never do it the old way again.

It's not a side by side. But here's a guy with 60+ plants with premo genetics growing 10+ pounders in 200 gallon smart pots going "after all these years, these fucking birds just made me a better grower." Damn I wish I could remember the name of that guy/thread. Humboldt______sumthinsumthin...

Anyway, I guess my point is, this community just isn't built that way. Nothing you read on here is gospel. Nothing. Everything is anecdotal at best and we have to simply absorb, digest, and apply ourselves when it comes to what is learned online.

What I'm seeing is people getting very upset that someone shared their experience. Suddenly everything they are saying is "fact" without proof. You're generating a false burden of proof to defend this "fact" when it's really just a personal experience and anyone with a solid head on their shoulders sees it for what it is. And not concrete in the way others have demanded.

 

[ghostmade]

tag

 

[cameron666]

i recently tried selective defoliation , and i will continue to do it each time.

i get more consistent buds throughout the plants if i remove the right leaves.

if i grow indoors with a light, i know the light cant penetrate deep into dense canopy, so i scrog, and remove some leaves to let the light get a little bit deeper into the canopy.
i can only grow indoors and i dont let the plants get any more than 2ft tall. I LOVE CANNA BUSH'S

i have seen many grows where there are 5ft plants and the lower 3ft are stripped of any leaves and bud sites.
why were these plants grew so tall in the first place ?

 

[PetFlora]

Pics of 'selective defol' 30 day from pistil

View attachment 269427 View attachment 269428

View attachment 269429 View attachment 269430

 

[mliokv48]

One piece of scientific research really isn't going to end this debate. There's plenty of research that shows negative effects for other species.

Nice try though

Proper plant and budsite spacing will get you max yields faster than removing leaves will.

Same here, I pack my plants and crop them very tightly, and get about a gram of popcorn from 6 plants. Tried a few myths and forum methods to reduce fluff/popcorn, who would have thought it turns out the trick was simply to let them do their thing.

What is this about proper node spacing. I try to get mine as close as possible is this not always good. Please point me in right direction.

 

[mliokv48]

That's a pretty strong statement. Out of curiosity, does that experience include a controlled side-by-side you could show us? When you used words like 'rape' and 'lose yield in a major way', it makes it sound pretty incontrovertible and that there is no room for discussion on the issue.

Please, do not take this the wrong way, at all. Understand that with my experiences, I personally need to see an actual controlled experiment from a highly skilled farmer. (not at all making any comment on your skills, merely describing the stipulations of the test I would need to see to be swayed - controlled side-by-side in a very controlled growroom by a pretty experienced dude or dudette.)

I don't doubt your increased yields over the years, what I will question, as the absolute fact you present it, namely 'raping yer ladies gives you a major increase in yield', is the reason(s) for those increased yields. Perhaps there are other factors at work? A bunch of other little stuff you learned each grow and then applied to future crops?

Lot's of things to ask about for possible contributors to those increased yields over the years, aside from increased defoliation rates throughout the years. Don't sell yourself short - some of that increased yield is directly tied to your experience you gain with each crop. If you defoliated on your very first two or three grows, as much as you do now, you don't think you get the same harvest, in quantity or quality, do you?

'Cause your better at it now than you were when you, "Never used to out of fear when i started out many years ago." And, "As ive progressed, ive defoliated more.". As you and your experience have progressed, I'll bet the quality of your harvest has progressed, correct? And I would suggest much of that independent of defoliation rates.

It could be tied to a lot of things, like increased air exchange around more leaves if you remove some, with your particular setup, etc. You have dense canopy. Perhaps some removal of fan leaves in the canopy increases air flow enough that the airflow is the actual contributor, despite defoliation.

Which then leads to asking what would happen if that wasn't an issue, like your plants not as densely spaced, and undefoliated plants were spaced less densely for natural airflow, etc. That's why I personally need to see a well controlled, well thought out side-by-side to be persuaded about defoliation and at what rates.

I looked at a couple pics of your garden in a couple of the threads in your sig. If by raping yer ladies you are talking about removal of leaves like you do here:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=43829&pictureid=1050579

then you and I are in agreement about defoliating that stuff. You don't have a SOG, by any means, but you got a pretty good plant density in your trays and the SCRoG netting rollin' so that shit just doesn't get any light. And it is all pretty much that lime green, limp stuff. I've never done a real test on that, but I remove all of that stuff as well - the shit just looks like it is a drain on the system and is obviously plant matter that is not in any state of vigorous growth, merely clinging to life.

But, that lime green stuff is very specific to indoor gardens, 'cause a bazillion miles + the height of a MJ bush = pretty much the same bazillion miles, when it comes to the intensity of the sunlight at the top of the plant, compared to the bottom, when outdoors.

And defoliating that unnatural lime green stuff indoors to positive results does not mean that there is a biological mechanisim in Sweet Lady Jane that leads to fatter, denser, more potent buds, if you start whacking off a bunch of healthy, well lit, well ventilated plant material. That stuff ain't a product of Mother Nature's HPS in the sky - it is the product of the one element of an indoor grow environment where we can't play God.

And that lime green stuff doesn't really show up like that in vertically lit RDWC grows, but you suggest whacking a whole bunch of healthy, lush, vigorously growing, green plant matter off anyway, just as you do with the horizontally lit system you are growing with? That doing so will give a 'major' increase in yield?

And you suggest greenhouse and outdoor growers, who do not have any of that lime green stuff, nor do they have anywhere near as many plants per square foot that you do, and hence, no air circulation problem in the canopy, engage in defoliation at the rates you do?

Else all those folks will suffer a major decrease in harvest?

I personally do not think you have enough data to extrapolate such. And that is obviously just my opinion ...

I think the sun gives 10,000 lumens to base of plant and hid get 5000<

 

[yesman]

I don't know shit: I'm a beginner grower. I wanted to find something out about defoliation vs. natural plant growth for my second grow, so I searched.

Advanced growers:

too bad a thousand words isn't worth a picture. There would be lots of discernible shit for us all to look at now. More science and less egos in the future, god willing.

 

[jump /injack]

Interesting stuff here, thanks.