Defoliation Experiment on NYCD

[Only Ornamental]

They simply get greener because they get more light for photosynthesis. Shaded leaves won't waste resources by building a lot of chloroplasts which can't work due to low light intensity. Look at a piece of lawn under a stone, log, or alike; the grass there has no light at all, doesn't develop their chloroplasts, and hence is yellow-whitish. Plants sense not only the quantity of light but also the efficacy ('yield') of their photosynthesis machinery and adapt to the strict minimum needed; that's how biology works, never waste anything .

BTW, I have the impression the non-defoliated plants grow a trifle faster. I'd expect nothing less but is it just vegetative matter (i.e. leaves) or also flowers? Hard to judge from pictures especially with the leaves obscuring half the plants. Harvest will hopefully tell...

 

[komboloi]

Interesting. The non-defoliated plants appear to be taller in each side-by-side photo. To me that suggests that the fan leaves are at least producing plant growth of some kind that the non-defoliated plants are not producing as much of. Whether that equates to greater bud weight as well as greater height remains to be seen.

Great experiment. Thanks for doing this.

 

[907BUDZ]

Defoliation slows vertical growth. I have been doing extreme defoliation for the last month on my babys and they are some bad bitchs. Right now they are about 2 months from sprout and are only 10-12" tall but 18" wide. This is my first time trying defol but i am def impressed.

 

[GrowingHappynes]

Typically when I defoliate my plants tend to slow vertical growth for the first 2-3 defoliations. They will begin to bush out more, and after a few times the defoliation will no longer bother them. Also after a month or so of training I've noticed that the leaves will stay more uniform in size, and stop growing huge fan leafs. It also makes for a more even canopy. Topping also goes well with defoliation.I still get great harvests with the technique. Some strains it feel it's almost necessary to prune. I just hate a big shady plant.

The most important thing I find in success with the technique is to start at a young age. After a few times they get used to it. They then begin to grow more bud sites once they receive direct light.

 

[komboloi]

Defoliation slows vertical growth. I have been doing extreme defoliation for the last month on my babys and they are some bad bitchs. Right now they are about 2 months from sprout and are only 10-12" tall but 18" wide. This is my first time trying defol but i am def impressed.

I'm keeping an open mind on this experiment and am very interested in others' experiences. But I don't think having a 2 month old plant only 12 inches tall and 18 inches wide would be a goal of mine. Sounds like bonsai. Or a healthy 30 day old plant that's been topped and LST'd.

 

[907BUDZ]

It was topped
and lst. I kept the growing to a minimum for the first month. As my flower room was full. Bush of a plant that is suppsed to yield 1/2-3/4 of a pound. How is that not appealing??

 

[Only Ornamental]

Typically when I defoliate my plants tend to slow vertical growth for the first 2-3 defoliations. They will begin to bush out more, and after a few times the defoliation will no longer bother them. Also after a month or so of training I've noticed that the leaves will stay more uniform in size, and stop growing huge fan leafs. It also makes for a more even canopy. Topping also goes well with defoliation.I still get great harvests with the technique. Some strains it feel it's almost necessary to prune. I just hate a big shady plant.

The most important thing I find in success with the technique is to start at a young age. After a few times they get used to it. They then begin to grow more bud sites once they receive direct light.

Sounds pretty much like what they do with bonsai (apart from using small pots in the latter case) . And yes, bonsai also 'need' some training and 'getting used to it'. I'm not saying it won't work for a bigger cannabis yield but it still doesn't sound right in my ears. I'm getting itchy seeing the final result of this side-by-side .

 

[907BUDZ]

Anyone know keef treez? His post is what got me to try the defoliation.

 

[907BUDZ]

I do have to say the last time i plucked them it re leafed in a couple days! I was blown away by how quick it was this time.

 

[hempfield]

Another week is gone now and this girls are getting fatter each day. At this point I can tell for sure that defoliation is not quite the right thing to try on this strain, especially an aggressive striping like I did.

The non-defoliated plants are taller and the buds are more developed than on their stripped sisters. At this point the defoliated plants seems to be 2-3 weeks behind non-defoliated. As they will finish (my guess) on different time intervals, we must follow them till the end, to see the differences (especially in terms of yield).

And now I will let the images speak for themselves :

NYCD - Non Defoliated Plants, Day 43







NYCD - Defoliated Plants, Day 43







NYCD - All Plants, Day 43

 

[hempfield]

NYCD - The Tallest Plants, Day 43

 

[hempfield]

NYCD - Closeup of The Tallest Plants, Day 43








NYCD - The Average Plants, Day 43

 

[hempfield]

NYCD - Closeup of The Average Plants, Day 43






NYCD - The Shortest Plants, Day 43

 

[hempfield]

NYCD - Closeup of The Shortest Plants, Day 43







Last night when I took this pictures I was a little bit to stoned and I had some difficulties when trying to distinct the defoliated from non-defoliated plants, as the large fan leaves on the non-defoliated started to die and fall off , so I need to mark the pots to avoid further confusion.

I am more and more convinced that defoliation dose not bring any advantage on this specific strain.

 

[komboloi]

Interesting. It'll be fun to see what the dry harvested weight comparison looks like.

I was thinking about this the other night. With other flowering plants I've dealt with (roses, berries, etc.), the fruit or flower doesn't seem to need to be in the sun to develop as well as the sun-drenched fruits and flowers. What seems to matter is whether the plant is getting enough sun. Example: When I go picking wild blackberries, the fruit on the shady side of the bramble seems every bit as prolific and developed as the fruit on the sunny side of the bramble. But if the bramble itself is shaded, there is less fruit. Same with roses. The flowers growing in full sun don't seem to be any better than those that are shaded. What seems to matter is that the plant as a whole get plenty of sun.

I've never measured this, so my limited impression could be wrong. And cannabis plants are not roses or blackberry brambles. But if my impression is correct and holds true for cannabis, it would suggest that trying to get light to individual flowers would not be important so long as the plant itself is getting plenty of light.

But if that's true, why do HID's produce better than T5s? The prevailing theory is that the HID "penetrates the canopy" better, resulting in better bud development lower down on the plant, whereas the T5 has limited effective bud-producing range (i.e. won't penetrate the canopy very far). Maybe that's not the right explanation. Maybe the HID produces better because the plant as a whole is getting more light energy (600w HPS > 250w fluorescent), and plants will bud at the top first, only producing good buds lower on the plant if the plant is getting enough overall light energy. That could be tested by doing a side-by-side of equivalent-energy HIDs and T5s.

Right now I have my first T5 grow flowering, because it's summer and I live in a hot climate. I'm using a 4 ft. fixture with 8 flower-spectrum bulbs for a total of 432 watts. I've grown this strain under 400 watts of HPS before with the same veg time, same nutes, same water, same medium, same method. And I know what to expect in terms of yield under 400w of HPS. So it'll be interesting to see what approximately the same amount of T5 wattage produces. If the yield under 432 watts of T5 light is about the same or a bit higher than under the 400w HIDs, that might suggest that yield is determined more by how much light energy a plant gets in total, not whether the light is high enough in intensity to "penetrate the canopy." And if canopy penetration is not the key to bud production, that would suggest that getting light to individual buds (e.g. through defoliation) is not important to the development of those buds. Instead, the light-energy available to the plant as a whole would be the determinant. It's not a scientifically-valid comparison, because it's not side-by-side. But it'll be interesting to see the results anyway.

Make sense, or is this weed I'm smoking just really really good?

 

[hempfield]

Yes, it make sense : the weed you'r smoking is just really really good !

But the weed I am smoking right now does not allow me to type to much

 

[DrFever]

Interesting. It'll be fun to see what the dry harvested weight comparison looks like.

I was thinking about this the other night. With other flowering plants I've dealt with (roses, berries, etc.), the fruit or flower doesn't seem to need to be in the sun to develop as well as the sun-drenched fruits and flowers. What seems to matter is whether the plant is getting enough sun. Example: When I go picking wild blackberries, the fruit on the shady side of the bramble seems every bit as prolific and developed as the fruit on the sunny side of the bramble. But if the bramble itself is shaded, there is less fruit. Same with roses. The flowers growing in full sun don't seem to be any better than those that are shaded. What seems to matter is that the plant as a whole get plenty of sun.

I've never measured this, so my limited impression could be wrong. And cannabis plants are not roses or blackberry brambles. But if my impression is correct and holds true for cannabis, it would suggest that trying to get light to individual flowers would not be important so long as the plant itself is getting plenty of light.

But if that's true, why do HID's produce better than T5s? The prevailing theory is that the HID "penetrates the canopy" better, resulting in better bud development lower down on the plant, whereas the T5 has limited effective bud-producing range (i.e. won't penetrate the canopy very far). Maybe that's not the right explanation. Maybe the HID produces better because the plant as a whole is getting more light energy (600w HPS > 250w fluorescent), and plants will bud at the top first, only producing good buds lower on the plant if the plant is getting enough overall light energy. That could be tested by doing a side-by-side of equivalent-energy HIDs and T5s.

Right now I have my first T5 grow flowering, because it's summer and I live in a hot climate. I'm using a 4 ft. fixture with 8 flower-spectrum bulbs for a total of 432 watts. I've grown this strain under 400 watts of HPS before with the same veg time, same nutes, same water, same medium, same method. And I know what to expect in terms of yield under 400w of HPS. So it'll be interesting to see what approximately the same amount of T5 wattage produces. If the yield under 432 watts of T5 light is about the same or a bit higher than under the 400w HIDs, that might suggest that yield is determined more by how much light energy a plant gets in total, not whether the light is high enough in intensity to "penetrate the canopy." And if canopy penetration is not the key to bud production, that would suggest that getting light to individual buds (e.g. through defoliation) is not important to the development of those buds. Instead, the light-energy available to the plant as a whole would be the determinant. It's not a scientifically-valid comparison, because it's not side-by-side. But it'll be interesting to see the results anyway.

Make sense, or is this weed I'm smoking just really really good?

Now you make little sense but here is where your wrong

I've never measured this, so my limited impression could be wrong. And cannabis plants are not roses or blackberry brambles. But if my impression is correct and holds true for cannabis, it would suggest that trying to get light to individual flowers would not be important so long as the plant itself is getting plenty of light.

but it is important see you can have a 1000 watt on one plant and no matter what your lower buds under the canopy will never get to the same size or even mature as fast as the top buds nearest the light source that is why so many top train plants to achieve as many bud sites at the light source

 

[komboloi]

Now you make little sense but here is where your wrong

I've never measured this, so my limited impression could be wrong. And cannabis plants are not roses or blackberry brambles. But if my impression is correct and holds true for cannabis, it would suggest that trying to get light to individual flowers would not be important so long as the plant itself is getting plenty of light.

but it is important see you can have a 1000 watt on one plant and no matter what your lower buds under the canopy will never get to the same size or even mature as fast as the top buds nearest the light source that is why so many top train plants to achieve as many bud sites at the light source [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=39004&pictureid=921957&thumb=1]View Image[/url] [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=39004&pictureid=921960&thumb=1]View Image[/url]

This is incorrect. The reason for spreading out a plant and evening the canopy is to expose more of the whole plant to light -- not just the flowers -- so that the energy of the light is more efficient, because there is more surface area of the whole plant exposed to more light. The fact that this produces more flowers is a direct result of such efficient use of the available energy on the whole plant, including those flowers. And the plant wants to grow up to the light. When more of the plant is perpendicular to the light source, it sends up more of itself, including flowers at all the bud sites. The same principles apply in a VSCROG setup; it's just that the whole operation is kind of turned on its side.

 

[sznake]

The buds of the NON-defoliated look fatter and healthier!

 

[hempfield]

The buds of the NON-defoliated look fatter and healthier!

Yes, they are fatter, but not necessarily healthier, also they are now ~ two weeks ahead.

I observed them very close and I noticed more bud tips (small branches) on each bud site for the non-defoliated, and this is the reason they look fatter.