Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?

[TruthOrLie]

The red dots in my signature illustrate an optical illusion.

If I were to show you the red dot on the right, and then the red dot on the left, separately, your mind would "guess" the red dot on the left is larger.

This relates to people growing a plant without defoliating, and then a couple months later one that was defoliated, and then concluding "Oh, it looks bigger/more yield"...

To demonstrate that the red dots are the same size, you cut off all the petals/leaves from both red dots and compare they are the exact same size. This would be the same as "trimming" your chopped buds and letting them dry.

With all the leaves and water gone, we can truly see which is actually the larger or same or smaller.

 

[ShroomDr]

Dude, are you trying to argue that the leaves in the picture of the plant that wasn't defoliated are not hiding huge nugs from our view?

NO, im pointing out the fallacy of you trying to comparing pictures, while you have the two red dots paradox in your signature. You cant have it both ways.

 

[ShroomDr]

I don't know what king of logic you think im strictly sticking to, but obviously those pictures are hiding a great deal of bud growth underneath the leaves. My bet is the nugs under the leaves are waaaaaay fatter than the nugs in the same position as the plant that grew with no fan leaves.

Your logic is that the red dots cannot be assesses with the white petals, but your 'bet is the nugs under the leaves are waaaaaay fatter' is ludicrous, given your red dot paradox.

You cant use both.

 

[TruthOrLie]

NO, im pointing out the fallacy of you trying to comparing pictures, while you have the two red dots paradox in your signature. You cant have it both ways.

I'm note quite sure what is going on here. Are we agreeing?

I'm saying you CAN'T compare the pictures because although more buds are revealed in the defoliated picture more, the unrevealed nugs in the non-defoliated picture appear hidden, but I know they are large.

We COULD compare pictures if we remove AT LEAST the leaves, if not also the stems and water (dry the nugs).

Clearly we can learn something from the picture in my signature, that the amount of material around a mass can confuse its size.

However, if we are INTELLIGENT and comprehend the lesson of the picture in my signature, we can deduce that we are seeing an optical illusion and MORE THAN LIKELY the red dots, and the nugs are actually the SAME SIZE.

 

[TruthOrLie]

I'm not comparing those two pictures.

I'm analyzing them.

My analysis tells me you are being very anal about refusing to accept my point.

It doesn't matter how many pictures you take... if you manipulate the properties of optical illusions you can make people think they see something that isn't really there, or not see something that is there.

The first side by side comparison I know of for defoliation was finally posted and I am posting my opinion/conclusion/requests for follow through.

Although I very much appreciate the contribution, in order to get the answers many of us need, a few steps have been missed or not taken at all.

 

[TruthOrLie]

Your logic is that the red dots cannot be assesses with the white petals, but your 'bet is the nugs under the leaves are waaaaaay fatter' is ludicrous, given your red dot paradox.

You cant use both.

Once again...

the people who support defoliation...

they claim that the leaves "block the light to the nug" so they remove it

here we clearly see a HUGE nug UNDERNEATH a leaf blocking it.

my guess, because I have intelligence and am able to compensate for the fact that a huge fan leaf is covering a nug, that THE NUG UNDER THE LEAF STILL GROWS LARGE.

How can this be if one needs to "remove the leaf blocking the light to the nug so it grow bigger" ?????????????

 

[ShroomDr]

well from first glance, my analysis, is the red dot on the left is bigger. Thats what my eyes and brain are telling (and deceiving) me. Lucky for me, ive seen that thought problem before, and i know the dots are the same size.


I am being very anal about holding you to your standards.

You present a visual paradox, illustrating how your eyes deceive you when comparing two images, and they you try to draw conclusions using your eyes to compare two images. How do you not understand that incompatibility?

I'm not comparing those two pictures.

I'm analyzing them.

HUH? LOL. If your not analyzing them against each other, wtf are the analysis parameters?

 

[slowandeasy]

well from first glance, my analysis, is the red dot on the left is bigger. Thats what my eyes and brain are telling (and deceiving) me. Lucky for me, ive seen that thought problem before, and i know the dots are the same size.


I am being very anal about holding you to your standards.

You present a visual paradox, illustrating how your eyes deceive you when comparing two images, and they you try to draw conclusions using your eyes to compare two images. How do you not understand that incompatibility?



HUH? LOL. If your not analyzing them against each other, wtf are the analysis parameters?

When I posted earlier that my plants "looked" bigger, than previous runs I got blasted because I said I can tell they are bigger. I said that I could tell just by looking at my harvest that I did much better and had to defend myself until the final weight was in. I had to defend myself for a week,They argued with me until I posted my weight and it showed an increase of 25%. Then no arguing, and infact...my post seemed to go unseen by them all of the sudden.

One thing a picture cannot show is density. Only the grower can see the difference. That is where the difference comes into play with defoliation...atleast for me. The buds were more dense than usual...especially lower buds. Fluffy buds dry up much smaller, denser buds do not change size as much.

I had Zero waste on my last round and the whole plant was mature earlier than usual. This round is almost done and could have been harvested earlier than normal as well...but I flush for 10 days, so I will not take early. This run produced the most Trich covered plants on this strain ever out of 6 runs in a row. I am not claiming defoliation to be the cause, but they are extremely covered this run. For me defoliation works well in Flower, I do not have the same attitude defoliation in VEG....in VEG it can be counter productive for most people. It will stunt your plant, and unless you have to veg a long time...it is not worth it IMO. I will continue to defoliate in Flower for sure. I will experiment still in VEG, but certain strains I will never defoliate in VEG ever again "Sour Bubble" IMO defoliating in VEG works better for Sativa's

 

[Madrus Rose]

Once again...

the people who support defoliation...

they claim that the leaves "block the light to the nug" so they remove it

here we clearly see a HUGE nug UNDERNEATH a leaf blocking it.

my guess, because I have intelligence and am able to compensate for the fact that a huge fan leaf is covering a nug, that THE NUG UNDER THE LEAF STILL GROWS LARGE.

How can this be if one needs to "remove the leaf blocking the light to the nug so it grow bigger" ?????????????

Another priceless post worth saving as a treat for further study . Don't u think u have bemused yourself enough with this optical illusion u took from a gra3tH3ad post a week ago ?
Its getting a little over used mon ami ...or suppose its an anal thing ?

After days of seeing redundant arguing u seem to enjoy so much we have found the removing leaves does not cause hermied plants ...removal of leaves does not cause PM or introduce mold & bud rot by contamination & wounding the poor plant ...& removal of leaves/defoliation is done to let light shine on shaded buds so that they can ripen & solidify more instead of looking like flarf .

Denuding/defoliating/stripping the plant up from its base creating an upper canopy (lolllipopping) is a common practice among many of the best growers for increased quality yields & lessening flarf at the end of a run . Of course this depends on the grow, the strain, the size & number of the plants when flowered ...under a given light footprint & grow space . Edit here: And pruning the top leaves/fans as well as some lollipopping from underneath both combine with training & trellising to offer a more consistent high quality run for the intensive grower . The intention is to keep a plant more to the lower profile bushy style where most all of the budsites from top to bottom are solid & "usable" given the opening up of light exposure.

What is more hard to believe than your optical illusion allusion, is that you personally have never removed a leaf from a plant ever , fan or otherwise ? You do grow don't you ?? Was looking for some examples in your non existent photo album ....but dofliating or pruning requires time & work, which i hardly think u have anytime for all the debating u seem to get involved in.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Denuding/stripping the [tiny shaded branches of a] plant up from its base creating an upper canopy (lolllipopping) is a common practice among many of the best growers for increased quality yields & lessening flarf at the end of a run .

Lolipopping (denuding the larf sites from underneath) is the opposite of defoliation as set forth in this thread.

Madrus you're presenting yourself in a manner as though you are defending the technique promoted in post #1, but the things you say agree more with what others have said about proper pruning methods that are contrary to the 'defoliators' descriptions of defoliation style kung fu.

I train and prune lolipop+lst style, and would put my grams/watt/year numbers up against anyones.

 

[ShroomDr]

I have the right to make a comparisons, you have the right to make a comparisons, someone who's signature is dedicated to the fact that your eyes will deceive you, should not be presenting arguments against this subject (defol), when their sole analytical tool is their eyes.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The optical illusion is not to demonstrate merely that your eyes deceive you, but to demonstrate a very specific way in which your eyes deceive you that directly relates to claims made in this thread. "looks bigger to me"

tiny leaves make the bud appear larger than it is, big leaves make the bud appear smaller.

No need to try and generalize it's pertinence so as to twist things.

 

[ShroomDr]

Lolipopping (denuding the larf sites from underneath) is the opposite of defoliation as set forth in this thread.

I dont see them as polar opposites, but certainly removing growth tips (Lolipop) is certainly a different approach than removing fan leaves (defol).

Hell, while similar in their intent (better bud), IMO the effects aspired are different. Lolipop seeks to focus energy on the tops, where defol seeks to focus energy on the otherwise shaded parts of the plant (the whole plant).

 

[ShroomDr]

The optical illusion is not to demonstrate merely that your eyes deceive you, but to demonstrate a very specific way in which your eyes deceive you that directly relates to claims made in this thread. "looks bigger to me"

tiny leaves make the bud appear larger than it is, big leaves make the bud appear smaller.

No need to try and generalize it's pertinence so as to twist things.

What have i twisted? Someone shouldnt present a reason why visual comparison are misleading, and then make visual comparisons. Positive or negative comparison, the two are incompatible.

In the same vein as you cant claim to be a non christian and wear a What Would Jebus Do bracelet.

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself could not eat it?

 

[Madrus Rose]

Lolipopping (denuding the larf sites from underneath) is the opposite of defoliation as set forth in this thread.

Madrus you're presenting yourself in a manner as though you are defending the technique promoted in post #1, but the things you say agree more with what others have said about proper pruning methods that are contrary to the 'defoliators' descriptions of defoliation style kung fu.


The point of the optical illusion was simply that a bud surrounded by small leaves looks bigger than it is and a bud surrounded by big fans looks smaller than it really is.

Yes , you're right... the thread author does show his first example clearly showing a smaller more compact plant that has been trained/bent & pruned heavily of fans ontop & does offer this as an alternative pruning method to growing more bushy plants .

His overall beginning example is a bit hazey since he begins with a near finished plant & relies on just a description of the early leaf removal not clearly stating how much time or extra time it took to get the plant revegged thru those early stages & leaves much to infer from his description . Definitely seemed to work fine for him & his approach as he described it was more to the radical end of things ...but the idea or gist of it certainly clear & there seemed plenty of room for interpretation of practice of pruning or deleafing techniques from the start . Whether smaller bushy plants or taller lollipoped babys , we all employ it to some extent.

* The optical illusion example is fine for one or two posts GH , but a series of endless reposting of it more reflects an entrenched pov (as in a shield) rather than an open minded one . I'd feel more comfortable with that if some of the poster & posters that resort to using it also demonstrated they were participating in an actual love of "real-time growing" and not hanging out in general here for some other reason or reasons.

catch the drift ?

knew ya would




i know u know, that i know u know !
my love is real, not fade away...in livin memory of JoeS

 

[ShroomDr]

If someone could superimpose the two pictures, using the 2L coke bottle as 'equal' reference (LemonG moment), i think we can see if its half the size.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

What have i twisted? Someone shouldnt present a reason why visual comparison are misleading, and then make visual comparisons. Positive or negative comparison, the two are incompatible.

In the same vein as you cant claim to be a non christian and wear a What Would Jebus Do bracelet.

It was never presented as "a reason why visual comparison are misleading" It was presented as a single specific type of optical illusion that specifically precisely applies to this thread.

"The same bud would appear bigger surrounded by small leaves and smaller when surrounded by bigger leaves." is the message of the optical illusion... not "looks can be deceiving."


I do not think the optical illusion should be repeated ad nauseum or applied to any situation other than the specific one it applies to. I also think that TruthorLie is a bit too abrasive at times, and sometimes seems to be dedicated more to the argument than to clearing things up.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I dont see them as polar opposites, but certainly removing growth tips (Lolipop) is certainly a different approach than removing fan leaves (defol).

One approach removes the lower budsites which would be shaded or way too far from the light, to encourage the biggest tops to become bigger tops.

The other approach retards the biggest tops in an effort to let the lower budsites compete for light and catch up some.

seems fairly opposite to me.

 

[TruthOrLie]

ARE YOU GUYS FREAKING JOKING WITH ME OR SOMETHING?

I'm about to pop a freAking blood vessel or something. HOLY SMOKES!

You are telling me you fail to see how taking a picture of two plants to compare them is COMPLETELY UNFAIR if in the picture the nugs of one plant are more than 50% BLOCKED by the leaves in the picture.

IF WE ARE GOING TO COMPARE TWO PICTURES take the freaking leaves OFF of BOTH plants!

For goodness sakes. It doesn't even have anything to do with my signature or defoliation. Its the principal of comparison. How can you compare nugs grown with and without leaves if when you take the comparison photo you still LEAVE THE LEAVES ON WHICH BLOCK THE IMAGE FROM THE CAMERA.

I'm not saying you get fatter nugs when you leave the leaves on while taking a picture.

I'm saying you get fatter nugs when you leave the leaves on while GROWING the plant.

HOLY FREAKING SMOKES!




Why are they fatter? Healthier from not having to fight disease is my guess.

 

[Xare]

All the Speculation is fun but here comes my Data !

Clones, 1 week into flower:

Day 21 Before stripping:

Day 21 After stripping:

Day 28, One Week After:

Second stripping update of my Hempy SOG.


Day 45 of flower Before Defol:

Day 45 After Defol:

Here are two examples from two different Harvests. One that has been lolly-popped and one that has been defoliated.

Lolly-popped batch:

Defoliated batch:

^^ Stripped of fans on day 21 and 45

Here is a closer view of one of the side branch buds.

Day 63 before Harvest:

Ok this is my Perpetual Two Liter Hempy SOG on Drip Irrigation. Ive been updating it in this very long thread and this is everything in one post.

Usually I run 25 clones of White Poison (white widow x durban poison) under a 600 watt HPS in a 4x4 space

And I lolly pop those clones after the first and 2nd week of flower. Removing all the lower branches like most SOG growers do.


My yields doing this have been 11 - 12 ounces per harvest.

So 12 - 13.5 grams per SOG clone and that makes it around .5 grams per watt each harvest.

This is my first time ever trying Defoliation or Stripping of Fan leaves, but my entire grow has been setup following Jrosek and his SOG.



My final dry weight for this defoliated batch is 420 Grams


That works out to 16.8 grams per SOG clone, @ .7 grams per watt !!!

15 Ounces.


In a couple photo's you can see my only One Gallon hempy sog clone. It yielded 22 grams.