well, you only named diseases, and tried to make a false analogy out of the naming.
You have never presented one iota of evidence to support your asinine claims about stressing seedlings.
only false analogy after false analogy.
I'll stop posting in this thread when people stop making asinine assertions.
ooh boy... name calling... lmao."give an example of a person with a dormant genetic trait that shows up when stressed, please"
That is your quote!
No those are all genetic traits that manifest themselves later in life. The result is the disease or disorder, due to a stressor early in life...just like you asked. There is a gene for everyone of those disorders or diseases, but a stressor can activate the gene to cause the disease or disorder to surface. Without the stressor, it may never surface. Just like intersexed plants that get stressed, it can cause the trait to surface. Real cool to call me an idiot when I deliver proof. Typical of your arrogant ways. Later Dick H3ad
Howdy, Boerman-- Thanks. Yes, the plant was also FIM'd early on and grown with vertical lighting. All branches end up roughly the same size. The branching on this pheno became especially uniform.
Is this image an accurate demonstration of defoliation and FIMing?
Because i connot see any juncture on that plant where the FIM technique has been properly used.
I guess you missed! lol
ooh boy... name calling... lmao.
And lying too, claiming I called you an idiot... Classy and Mature of ya.
Traits ≠ Diseases
You did not name any traits, nor provide evidence that what happened in childhood was the impetus for the diseases you keep misnaming as dominant traits, nor did you demonstrate that stress in childhood increased the chance that it was going to show up anyhow.
If one is genetically prone to diabetes, then the same triggers are going to produce diabetes, whether or not the triggers are tripped in childhood or adulthood... Same with the other diseases you named, when you were trying to list traits...
please quit grasping at straws, not having success at it is making you mean.
You acted like pruning a sexually immature plant increased the likelihood that it would be intersexed, and you were wrong. Get over it... it is okay that you were mistaken as long as you learn from it.
I've got to admit that this thread has become quite addictive for me now, it's usually one of the first things I look at when I get here.
Watching a small band of hardcore defoliation believers defend themselves and refuse to budge against the forces of knowledge, experience and common sense just gets funnier every day. I particularly like the way that they refer back to the "old days" when everyone on the thread was a happy defoliator sharing their love of the word of k33fter, despite the fact that the first person to call bullshit did so before the end of the first page.
I'm glad to see that as soon as one sane person gives up trying to argue reason and leaves the thread another one steps up to take over.
Can we please have lots more pictures of stringy bald looking plants with a few poor to mediocre buds on them as "evidence" of this high yield technique? They always make me laugh.
Yeah because your join date to a pot site = experience.
Im new here....that does not reflect my ability to rationalize or my ability to grow.
also someone said join date = newb at growing
Those are not diseases or disorders until stressed...they are suppressed genes that when stressed can trigger symptoms and if stressed as a child, might not show up til later. Now you want symptoms? Go f yourself, look it up yourself...I know better! Like you said, Get over...its okay you were mistaken as long as you learn from it!
diseases and traits are two different things and you've made no point. I never asked for diseases or symptoms of diseases as a plant being monoecious is neither...
Comparing human diseases to plant sex is a false analogy.
Lets get to this thread though, defoliation (done properly) can increase production by 10 to 15%.
Your logic is quite twisted there. You've gotten a few things wrong. It is the large fan leaves that fuel bud growth. Ive seen this on my own plants that suffered from a horrible zinc deficiency. The areas where fan leaves remained green and active had larger buds, while the fan leaves that were decimated by Zinc deficiency had buds that were miniature. The large fan leaves provide a much greater surface area for photosynthesis to occur than over bud leaves. Its even been said in this thread that removing the fan leaves has resulted in smaller buds on their plants.
Well, Dave, my logic may be twisted. I don't know. But your logic is incomplete. Try thinking past the fan leaves. Do you think a deficiency stops at the fan leaves? In the areas where the fans were effected by the deficiency, the bud leaves would be deficient as well. Your example can't really prove anything because if my idea is correct, then your poor results would have happened even if the fans had been removed. In fact, it can be argued that the fans could have been a factor in causing the deficiency by hogging nutes that were needed by the bud leaves to do their work of building buds. And, BTW, gawwdddddaaammmnnn! 158 pages and you saw where someone said that removing fans resulted in smaller buds. You mean you never saw where anyone had more buds, harder buds, bigger buds on the lower branches, 25% more yield????? You have a pretty selective memory.
You are also incorrect on the amount of mobile nutrients stored in the fan leaves. They have quite a bit. Have you ever witnessed a mobile nutrient deficiency occur in your plants? It starts with the oldest and largest fan leaves, then progresses to the smaller leaves, and bud leaves. N, P, K, Cl, Mg, Mo, are mobile nutrients, and the largest leaves will of course have the greatest concentration of these nutrients that can be consumed by the newer smaller growth when supplies are limited.
Again, not much depth to your thinking. I couldn't possibly be "incorrect on the amount of mobile nutrients stored in the fan leaves" because I didn't give an amount. I didn't say anything about mobile nutrients per se. When I said that big fans may provide little, if any, actual nutritive support for buds, I was talking about the products of photosynthesis. But, since you want to talk mobiles, yes, I have witnessed mobile nutrient deficiency. But I also took the time to learn what was going on. You should give that a try sometime. Your thinking on this is exactly the opposite to what is going on. Your plant is very efficient. The reason it starts cannibalizing the oldest and biggest fan leaves is because they are expendable. Think about the life cycle of a leaf. It starts out just a little nub on a branch. It uses materials produced by other parts of the plant to begin developing. As it gets bigger, it begins to supply some of its own needs and rely less on other parts of the plant. There comes a point where it starts producing more than it needs and begins to support other parts of the plant. There comes a time when its production begins to decline until it eventually is producing less than is needed to keep it alive. Sooner or later the plant sucks all the remaining value out of it and lets it drop off. When a plant starts to suffer a deficiency, it is not going to sacrifice its most productive member to fix it. It is going to sacrifice its oldest, least valuable member. That would be that big old fan leaf that you love so much. They don't have the greatest concentration of nutrients. They are just the most expendable.
I will agree with you that fan leaves fuel growth for that node they are attached to. This is pretty easy to see if one observes their plants when placed under nutrient stress.
See, at least you got something right.