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)
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!
Also, as mentioned, makes for better air circulation, and buds get more light energy
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.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.
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:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For popcorn buds...you are 100% correct, direct light is not necessario. But from trichome/essential oils and size, direct light is THE ONLY WAY TO FLY! I don't like popcorn...the collectives that like my herb--hate popcorn. Cheers man![/FONT]
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.
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.
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!
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
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.