part 2
part 2
part 2
Scientific evidence for selective DEFOLIATION
- Thread starter Squidbilly
- Start date
The "challenge" is to the folks that are making claims based on their impressions.
Trying to use the thinning of fruit to validate the stripping of fan leaf?
That's just silly.
Don't mind throwing a little ink at the claimants, but I can't afford to waste my meds on someone else's beliefs.
Been there, did that.
And only because my partner at the time was 110% "convinced" that it would give a bigger yield.
So, did half and placed a bet.
Loser, had to give up his share of the winners extra weight.
It was only a little over a pound and a quarter.
But I enjoyed the hell out of it.
So again I ask, would any true believers care to support their beliefs with a proper test run?
I'd love to change my mind about this.
Heck getting more output from less machine is the American dream.
Aloha, y'all
Weeze
You may have noticed their lack of interest in definitive experiment.
oops, forgot to mention...
oops, forgot to mention...
i did defoliate a couple times. i snipped off a few larf branches because they were hanging to the ground, laden with bud.
they were still quite healthy actually, i just couldn't have em hanging on the ground.
oops, forgot to mention...
i did defoliate a couple times. i snipped off a few larf branches because they were hanging to the ground, laden with bud.
they were still quite healthy actually, i just couldn't have em hanging on the ground.
additionally...
additionally...
i like to see the plant's true genetic character!
additionally...
i like to see the plant's true genetic character!
lol firstly.. unless im mistaken (It happens) you have only anecdotal evidence because your pdf examples where not on cannabis..
secondly, I wont be hacking my plants to pieces until I see something that convinces me. which ive not seen. so my bro science as you call it will remain anecdotal. grapes vines are not the same plant lol
its not me that needs to up my game friend, its you who has been asked over and over for pictures and can not provide. and you know what they say.. a picture says a thousand words
btw.. I never said buds don't need direct light. if your gonna quote me at leas quote me right. you seem fixated on buds needing light which is true.. no one is arguing that. im glad you have found a good way of bumping yield but that 10%-15% doesn't convince me. im still quite interested in seeing some pics. tbh if you have something to share, go ahead, id like to find a technique which yields better.. who wouldn't?
R
rüdiger
Ok.
as nobody seems to be able to make a side by side, I will do this now for you.
I have a fluoro sog setup so conditions the same for each plant.
I, as explained, am not into defoliation. no way.
this is Ace Zamaldelica clone(8) in 0,3liter, 7x7x8cm, soil each.
picture is 2 days old.
flowered direct after rooting.
today is day 22, flowering time is ~70 days total.
I will only defoliate 2 of them and as I have no clue about this draconic procedure,
I need a 'Defoliateur' who tells me how to do/ what to take of.
The lights go on in 4 hours!
take your chance, leaf rippers (btw, have you ever done foliar feeding?sorry i cant resist;-))
rüdiger
as nobody seems to be able to make a side by side, I will do this now for you.
I have a fluoro sog setup so conditions the same for each plant.
I, as explained, am not into defoliation. no way.
this is Ace Zamaldelica clone(8) in 0,3liter, 7x7x8cm, soil each.
picture is 2 days old.
flowered direct after rooting.
today is day 22, flowering time is ~70 days total.
I will only defoliate 2 of them and as I have no clue about this draconic procedure,
I need a 'Defoliateur' who tells me how to do/ what to take of.
The lights go on in 4 hours!
take your chance, leaf rippers
(btw, have you ever done foliar feeding?sorry i cant resist;-))rüdiger
Last edited:
The "challenge" is to the folks that are making claims based on their impressions.
Trying to use the thinning of fruit to validate the stripping of fan leaf?
That's just silly.
Don't mind throwing a little ink at the claimants, but I can't afford to waste my meds on someone else's beliefs.
Been there, did that.
And only because my partner at the time was 110% "convinced" that it would give a bigger yield.
So, did half and placed a bet.
Loser, had to give up his share of the winners extra weight.
It was only a little over a pound and a quarter.
But I enjoyed the hell out of it.
So again I ask, would any true believers care to support their beliefs with a proper test run?
I'd love to change my mind about this.
Heck getting more output from less machine is the American dream.
Aloha, y'all
Weeze
You may have noticed their lack of interest in definitive experiment.
well weez i though you were a virgin hahahaha
as long as you have some experience, then you have some dog in the fight.
the late 60's huh?
you guys were using clones? in the 60's?
then my question for you isn't defoliating related, but if you were cloning then, why didn't you keep cloning what you had and propagated it thru til today? folks seem to reminisce pretty fondly on pot from back then... what the hell man!?! hahaha
about defoliating or not....
no experience finger waving is for cheerleaders and armchair quarterbacks!
someone has to watch the game being played hahahaha
i tried NOT defoliating.... i didn't make a bet or anything.
I was just trying it for the experience, as when I was first training to grow my mentor taught me to defoliate, amongst other training techniques. When it was all said and done I got more and better buds from the plants I did mess with than without... maybe other training factors played a part in it... maybe not. But my experience proved my mentor correct and reinforced my attitudes about my actions & techniques I use.
I used to be leary of defoliating my plants I flower outside. My mentor told me it was a task for "inside plants" only. Well... I tried defoliating... then site pruning (gasp!) too... now, believe it or not, I treat my outside plants pretty much just like I do/did inside plants... maybe a touch less pruning than I used to do... but I do prune the shit out of them. and it works good. for me.
Im not gonna discount the maui sun and war it does for me...
so to each his own
thanks goodness right hahaha
I look at defoliating like I do drying/curing.... some guys swear by brown paper bags, and others don't use bags for nothing except transport, but good smoking bud is good smoking bud at the end of the day, however you do it.
My bad, I confused you with Sativied...he is the fool that made that comment. Guess age has a way of catching me...sorry!
If there are no cannabis studies on a particular area of concern, IMHO, the next best thing is to examine those on flowering/fruits and extrapolate what applies to cannabis--and use our intelligence to differentiate what may or may not be applicable.
Again, 1000 apologies for confusing your words with someone else!
Cheers!
Last edited:
...double post?
Last edited:
no worrys.. I do see your point about studying other fruits etc, I guess for the moment its the closest there is.
I just wished their was enough studies in cannabis.
And there's the problem that keeps this issue from reaching any consensus - people resort to personal attacks... cute.
The whole point of my post before that was to point out how people like you and your ignorant comments about buds requiring direct light kill a proper discussion about this. If you cannot get the simple fact that leaves are the only 'sources' and the rest are 'sinks' you're missing a few essential botany basics that don't require any scientific resources, any college book on botany should do the trick. E.g. read up on phloem transport, how it works for the 'entire' plant.
Fine, http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/lecturesf04am/lect19.htm
I have posted more than a few scientific resources and long explanations in multiple languages across the web but seeing that I had the wrong impression about being able to have a decent discussion about this topic here, why should I bother feeding a troll... If you ever packed things full, you can clearly observe that buds do not need ANY direct light as long as the leaves of the plant are healthy and plentiful.
Rather than shifting the burden of proof - as is so common for defoliators - where is your science showing that buds 'do' need direct light? (rhetorical question as it doesn't exist).
Yawn, you bore me--but in the interest of helping others, I will respond why "buds do need direct light" with "cut and paste" answers. But first, let's agree that we are really discussing "plant growth".
The three major functions that are basic to plant growth and development are:
Photosynthesis – The process of capturing light energy and converting it to sugar energy, in the presence of chlorophyll using carbon dioxide and water.
Respiration – The process of metabolizing (burning) sugars to yield energy for growth, reproduction, and other life processes.
Transpiration – The loss of water vapor through the stomata of leaves.
Source: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/141.html
Since "photosynthesis" is the only one that requires light, for the sake of brevity, lets restrict the discussion just to "photosynthesis".
With that in mind, here is a snippet of what I found when I googled: "light intensity" photosynthesis
Source: http://people.umass.edu/psoil120/manual/lab11.html
Intensity: Light intensity which is important to photosynthesis may be measured in units called foot-candles and is concerned only with visible light. Full sunlight on a clear summer day has an intensity of about 10,000 foot-candles. A classroom will have an intensity of about 100-foot candles. Photosynthesis and hence rate of plant growth will increase linearly with increases in light intensity from about 100 foot-candles to about 2500 foot candles.
Source: http://www.docbrown.info/ebiology/photosynthesis.htm
The rate of photosynthesis may be limited by:
(i) shortage of light (usually sunlight) slows photosynthesis - since the greater the light intensity, the greater the rate of photosynthesis....
Light, temperature and the availability of carbon dioxide interact and in practice any one of them may be the factor that limits photosynthesis.
Light energy is needed for photosynthesis, so as the light intensity increases, the rate of photosynthesis chemical reactions steadily increases in a linear manner.
Source: http://biology-igcse.weebly.com/effect-of-light-intensity-on-the-rate-of-photosynthesis.html
Plants need light energy to make the chemical energy needed to create carbohydrates. Increasing the light intensity will boost the speed of photosynthesis. However, at high light intensities the rate becomes constant.
Source: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/142.html
The more sunlight a plant receives, to a degree, the higher the photosynthetic rate will be. However, leaves of plants growing in low light readily sun scorch when moved to a bright location. Over time, as the wax content on a leaf increases, it will become more sun tolerant.
As illustrated in Figure 2, interior light levels in most homes are below that required for all but low light house plants. Except for rather bright sunny rooms, most house plants can only be grown directly in front of bright windows. Inexpensive light meters are available in many garden supply stores to help the indoor gardener evaluate light levels.
Source: http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/155/1/117
For parts of the day with lower temperature or lower radiation, or for canopies where a proportion of leaves experience reduced light levels through self-shading, the enhancement of photosynthesis is likely to be less.
Source: http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/garden/mg/botany/physiology.html
Photosynthesis is dependent on the availability of light. Generally speaking, as sunlight increases in intensity photosynthesis increases. This results in greater food production. Many garden crops, such as tomatoes, respond best to maximum sunlight. Tomato production is cut drastically as light intensities drop. Only two or three varieties of "greenhouse" tomatoes will produce any fruit when sunlight is minimal in fall and spring.
Now, don't you look foolish?
SmokinErb22
Member
Popcorn is why you defoliate. You get a higher return of good nug and less fluff.
Does it increase yield? Not really if you weigh the fluffy popcorn. What it does though, is it allows you to get rock solid nugs top to bottom. Nugs you can actually do something with besides the hash pile.
Does it increase yield? Not really if you weigh the fluffy popcorn. What it does though, is it allows you to get rock solid nugs top to bottom. Nugs you can actually do something with besides the hash pile.
sheet...
sheet...
popcorn is my personal stash!
sheet...
popcorn is my personal stash!
yeah I scrog too, at two weeks everything below the wire gets trimmed off. It is defoliating to a degree but no light gets below that point anyway so its either I cut it off or I cut it off. plus it makes it easier to hand water etc.
some strains will have golf ball sized tight nugs even in shaded areas lower down the plant. some don't.
Cat Jockey
Member
Lol. You're a bit of an arrogant person. Buddy, I've been growing for a couple decades, and have run xx,xxx watt gardens, have grown in just about every system, managed 60 strains or so at any one time on one nute regime, etc. When I was in the game a few years ago, I was pumping out x,xxx clones/week. I have been asked to consult on several large medical grows - and helped everyone that asked, for free.
I don't know it all, and I am sure there are people that know more about weed farming than me, but spare me your arrogant "I don't have time to teach you about Harvesting and drying 101."
Again, lol. I have been on the weed forums for 15 years. I've never seen a sig like yours. And your attitude in this post certainly backs up that obnoxious, arrogant, cry-baby sig.
If you think that the only thing that contributes to the aroma and flavor of your harvest is how you dry and cure it, well you need to follow your own advice and do some research. Far more is involved, including the actual internal chemical make up of the flowers and leaves you are going to smoke before you chop 'em.
I was pointing out some of the adverse effects of changing that chemical composition of your leaves and flowers, as you are doing with defoiliation. Changes which can affect final aroma and flavors, no matter how awesome yer expert self is at curing.
I love when people insult others in posts and then end it with something stupid like Cheers!. Another lol from me ...
Nah, I think I'll pass on that. In fact, I'm not even going to read whatever counter points you made. You're just too smart for me, and I won't get any of it ... Toodles. Done with this thread, as you seem to think you are the expert on it and we should all be in this thread to learn from you, the Weed Guru, and of course lavish our praise and thanks on ya for you being so altruistic to help all of us misguided, ill-informed, not nearly as experienced as you understand how to do everything right ...
I am open to defoiliation experiments and changing my mind, but at this point, mass defoiliation for the sake of doing it is not something I consider to be an overall benefit for harvest quantity and quality. And those experiments need to test for things like trichome development, etc., in addition to other things. I did mention on indoor, horizontally lit gardens, I will trim stuff below the canopy that receives very little light, but that is it ...
But you, however, are not really open to discussion about it, and your gameplan seems to be to insult people who disagree with your awesomeness and expertise. You have made up your mind, supporting it from tests on other species, performed for other reasons, and seem like a rather unpleasant person to engage in any type of indepth discussion regarding a back and forth of points.
So I shan't be doing that with you ...
Last edited:
Cat...thanks for excellent examples of "stoner logic" with a pinch of "youthful exuberance" (aka "I am 13 and I know it all"). You are a gift that keeps giving!
BTW, I have never seen "youthful exuberance" successfully trump "knowledge and/or experience"...have you?
Smoke a fatty, calm down, let's shake hands and...oh yeah, "cheers man"!
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.
BTW, I have never seen "youthful exuberance" successfully trump "knowledge and/or experience"...have you?
Smoke a fatty, calm down, let's shake hands and...oh yeah, "cheers man"!
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.
Last edited:
