Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?

I don't have time to read thru the whole thread but I was wondering k33ftr33z if you have done this technique but on a plant just growing straight up from a pot and not all spread out by a scrog because I can't help but wonder if the results you're seeing have more to do with everything being kept so low and relatively uniform in height? In other words if you took a plant and just let it grow normally out of the pot to say 4 feet tall and you used your method would you still get the 10 to 12 ounces or more? My gut says no because at that height the lower branches even unshaded are getting weaker light.

HempKat said:

I don't have time to read thru the whole thread but I was wondering k33ftr33z if you have done this technique but on a plant just growing straight up from a pot and not all spread out by a scrog because I can't help but wonder if the results you're seeing have more to do with everything being kept so low and relatively uniform in height? In other words if you took a plant and just let it grow normally out of the pot to say 4 feet tall and you used your method would you still get the 10 to 12 ounces or more? My gut says no because at that height the lower branches even unshaded are getting weaker light.

Click to expand...

He's mentioned many times that it's a comprehensive process, you can increase yields with just supercrop/scrogging like he does, and you can also increase yields with just defoliation. It isn't a comparison of the two, it is a combination. He has found that for himself the best yields come from combining the two, so that is what he does.

He's stated many many many times that he has developed this combination of techniques over thirty years of trying lots of different growing methods. He'd have to be a fool to do all this extra work if it didn't provide extra yield over just doing one or the other.

HempKat said:

I don't have time to read thru the whole thread but I was wondering k33ftr33z if you have done this technique but on a plant just growing straight up from a pot and not all spread out by a scrog because I can't help but wonder if the results you're seeing have more to do with everything being kept so low and relatively uniform in height? In other words if you took a plant and just let it grow normally out of the pot to say 4 feet tall and you used your method would you still get the 10 to 12 ounces or more? My gut says no because at that height the lower branches even unshaded are getting weaker light.

Click to expand...

Check this post out.

Solar panel analogy

Solar panel analogy

Assume one solar panel = 100w

One solar panel (leaf) with max 100w output is able to shade 4 solar panels.

In a 5 solar panel system placed flat we have 500w potential on a sunny day. Placing one panel above will shade 4 of them.
Now we are getting 100w + some shade residue.

Defoilating the top panel will increase energy storage by 300w.

So if you only have room for 4 panels putting the 5th one above the other 4 is a waste.
When giant fan leaves from two stems block a bush below you are doing the same thing and denying your lower solar panels from one on top. Couple this with immobile nutrients and we have a problem.

Let least leave leaves on lastly

Let least leave leaves on lastly

Defoiliating by date does not take growth pattern into consideration. Let light get in and ideally not through the plant. That way the light is being used in and around the plant not just on an outer surface. If a leaf is not shading and the node it is powering has a tiny shoot leave it a little longer. Let least leave leaves on lastly looking like light is least needed levels lower.

420Clones said:

Let least leave leaves on lastly looking like light is least needed levels lower.

Click to expand...

This was obviously a post constructed by someone who is sober.

twrex said:

This was obviously a post constructed by someone who is sober.

Click to expand...

I could read that last line of his a million times sober or high, and I dont think I would ever come close to understanding any of it.

twrex said:

He's mentioned many times that it's a comprehensive process, you can increase yields with just supercrop/scrogging like he does, and you can also increase yields with just defoliation. It isn't a comparison of the two, it is a combination. He has found that for himself the best yields come from combining the two, so that is what he does.

He's stated many many many times that he has developed this combination of techniques over thirty years of trying lots of different growing methods. He'd have to be a fool to do all this extra work if it didn't provide extra yield over just doing one or the other.

Click to expand...

Well if it's a combination of the two, and always has been then perhaps the method shouldn't simply be called defoliation? To call the method defoliation implies that all there is to it is the removing of leaves.

I myself have over 30 years of growing experience too although I won't try to suggest I've been developing some new experimental system over that time. From what I've known and learned from others, the "defoliation" is a normal part of making a scrog effective. Just like it's normal to remove excessive leaf growth in a SOG style if that growth is inhibiting the light from getting thru. You not only need do it for the light penetration but also for the air to circulate better thru the grow.

Since none of that was specified in the beginning then it also implies that simply removing leaves is going to make buds bigger. Well if you got a 6 foot plant under a 400W light and you got a bud site near the bottom, you can remove as many leaves as you like and that budsite isn't going to get bigger because it's too far from the light source and the inverse squared rule is firmly in play.

So my question, which I would prefered answered by the person I asked who is the person claiming this technique as theirs, stands. Is it really the removal of the leaves responsible for the results or is it as much or more, the proximity of the light?

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU DEFOLIATION THREAD!

thanks a lot dudes...who started and post regularly on here....this technique is really helping me with yeild! the results r obvious in a matter of days....

dealing with a stupidass stretchy slow skunk plant of some sort....smells like cowshit/soap....sweetens up toward the end. but it stretches for like 4 weeks! and its stupid as fuck aswell it will just grow fans on top of fans shading out any bud site or other leaves that get in there way. this technique is clearly helping me get the best out of this strain. i prefer to do a major defol. at about the 4th week, when the bud set is nearly nearly complete.....it maybe stretches another inch or 2 after i defoliate. the technique is amazing for this particular strain to say the least. i now have nice finger buds sticking out everywhere being loaded with bud instead of whispy popcorn shit. the crystals r everywhere too. i think the intense light hitting every budsite does greatly increase resin, along with mass(duh). the method does take a little skill at first to know which leafs you should rip and which ones you should leave. about 3 days after defol. the plant will have already generated new little leaves in spots where they wont block light in the future.

fucking amazing...thanks a lot for all this great new knowledge!

HempKat said:

Since none of that was specified in the beginning then it also implies that simply removing leaves is going to make buds bigger. Well if you got a 6 foot plant under a 400W light and you got a bud site near the bottom, you can remove as many leaves as you like and that budsite isn't going to get bigger because it's too far from the light source and the inverse squared rule is firmly in play.

So my question, which I would prefered answered by the person I asked who is the person claiming this technique as theirs, stands. Is it really the removal of the leaves responsible for the results or is it as much or more, the proximity of the light?

Click to expand...

although ive only played with this tech. for a couple months from reading this thread....IN THAT CASE, (6 foot plants/400watt) i would say you should lollypop AND defoliate.....it works for me!

twrex said:

This was obviously a post constructed by someone who is sober.

Click to expand...

I lol'd

Bionic said:

Check this post out.

Click to expand...

Well that's impressive but still doesn't answer my question since those plants appeared to be under 4 feet. Still they were taller then the thread starter's typical grow. I did notice though that the lower growth in that link was less impressive then what would be that same growth (growth near the base) on the thread starters plants. Which tends to support what I'm saying, it's the relationship of the plant to the light making the difference more then removing the leaves.

buddin_904 said:

although ive only played with this tech. for a couple months from reading this thread....IN THAT CASE, (6 foot plants/400watt) i would say you should lollypop AND defoliate.....it works for me!

Click to expand...

Thanks but I wasn't asking as in actually being in that situation. I was just using that as an example to try to illustrate my point that it's the closeness of the light as much as it is removing leaves. I'm concerned because I see alot of people who have read this thread now running around preaching that removing leaves is the answer and it's not, it's only part of the answer.

HempKat said:

Thanks but I wasn't asking as in actually being in that situation. I was just using that as an example to try to illustrate my point that it's the closeness of the light as much as it is removing leaves. I'm concerned because I see alot of people who have read this thread now running around preaching that removing leaves is the answer and it's not, it's only part of the answer.

Click to expand...

oooook so then do you agree with me that you should lollypop and defoliate.....would u say that is the answer???? i would

buddin_904 said:

oooook so then do you agree with me that you should lollypop and defoliate.....would u say that is the answer???? i would

Click to expand...

Well if you allowed a plant to get that tall under a 400W then yes, at least 3 of that 6 feet is wasted because it's outside of the effective range of a 400W so you might as well strip the bottom half bare as it's just sucking up resources to keep those lower leaves and branches going. Besides they're probably already getting unhealthy looking and fixing to die off because they're taking up more resources to live then they themselves produce.

HempKat said:

Well if you allowed a plant to get that tall under a 400W then yes, at least 3 of that 6 feet is wasted because it's outside of the effective range of a 400W so you might as well strip the bottom half bare as it's just sucking up resources to keep those lower leaves and branches going. Besides they're probably already getting unhealthy looking and fixing to die off because they're taking up more resources to live then they themselves produce.

Click to expand...

ok ok....hey hemp check out my pics though...i actually had those "6 foot plants under a 400watt"....i lollied the fuck out of them yes...the bottom 2-3 feet striped.....IF ONLY I HAD KNOWN TO DEFOLIATE THEM ASWELL AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

has anyone tried this with vert lighting? seems to me that vertical trees/mini trees and defoliation with a little lst would be the way to go but that is just my opinion.. when my room is finished I will be giving it a try

i tried this back in the day with favorable results. at least, i was happy. but virtually all the growers/experts i met told me it's wrong to defoliate. so, k33ftr33z, thanks for this informative thread and the validation. great read.

dubdi3mond said:

has anyone tried this with vert lighting? seems to me that vertical trees/mini trees and defoliation with a little lst would be the way to go but that is just my opinion.. when my room is finished I will be giving it a try

Click to expand...

I wouldn't do this to plants that are getting vertical lighting. They are getting light from alot of different angles, so any need to remove fan leaves is greatly reduced versus a dense canopy thats only getting light from overhead.

Hempkat, Ive leaned in both directions while riding the fence on defoliation, but I believe supercroppping is the key just like you have said already.

Id much rather have a 2.5 foot tall plant with all its branches bent outwards than one 4 foot tall plant with a dense canopy.

I think the need to defoliate with supercropped plants is greatly reduced as long as most of our bud producing sites are above the screen.

The only reason I would defoliate plants that grow au naturel is if they create such a dense canopy that they completely block out light to lower bud sites.

Of course, better planning will greatly increase our yield without removing fan leaves.

Cramming plants tightly in our growspaces is guaranteed to reduce yield. If we gave them plenty of space in between each other, more light is allowed to get down to lower bud sites as well as reflect off our reflective surfaces.

Someone linked to lifeless's experiment regarding the success of defoliation. He has his ladies crammed in tight, and who knows how much he would have yielded if he left the fan leaves on and gave them more room. Because he had them so crammed in, he had to resort to defoliation to improve the amount of usable light reaching to the lowest parts of the plant.

Two grows in a row I have crammed my ladies in, and each time I pay the price with reduced yield.

Eliminating a dense canopy is the key here folks. If we eliminate it, more red light reaches the lowest parts of the plants and we all can rejoice as our yield increases. You can either do it by removing alot of fan leaves while still having your ladies crammed in, or you can plan your grow better.

Give them more space between each other. Supercrop them just like OP has done. Dont let them grow too tall before flowering. Factor in the stretch of your strains.


Now for those of you that wholeheartedly support defoliation, I have some love for you too.

The red/far red ratio underneath a dense canopy is .13-.20. Thats pretty bad considering at the canopy its around 1.20! Those lower bud sites aren't getting shit for usable light when crammed in tight, which is why the branches stretch so much, and we get larf or nothing at all down below.

We can increase the red/far red ratio below the canopy by removing fan leaves at the canopy. How much you need to remove is unknown. Go out and buy a red/far red meter and do some experiments. Although they cost $900, so not everyone can afford to play with one.

If I were to defoliate, I think I would selectively remove fan leaves to allow greater light penetration to the bottom, but I wouldn't remove all of them. But remember, the lower buds are the last to flower, so remember that when you go removing the upper fan leaves.

Okay enough rambling.

Cliff notes: Make some fundamental changes to how you grow before thinking every fan leaf is the enemy.