Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?

[Greensub]

Okay so is it pretty clear then that defoliation in veg isn't a good idea?
It seems this method is best applied to leafy sativas about a month into flower.

By someones advice earlier in the thread, I defoliated 2 in veg. The 2 defoliated were the runts of the pack, low yield in comparison.

No... only that DFing in Veg will take the plant longer to grow to the same size before flowering.

For many people who are running separate veg chambers this isn't a deal breaker.

If you defoliated 2 in veg and put them in flower at the same time as your other plants then you missed part of the advice in the thread.

 

[TruthOrLie]

This particular challenge is unnecessary, I think we can agree that with this method plant B will most likely win, it's going to be bigger overall.

None of us here on the defoliation side are suggesting that defol during veg will increase yields unless it is accompanied by a longer veg time.

We're willing to admit to the negative of having to veg for longer with this technique.

My own test that I plan on trying in the future is similar but takes extended veg time into account.

Take 2 clones (A & B)

Grow clone A naturally to a specific height or size and place into flower.

DF clone B and veg to Identical height or size (this will take longer, we all admit this) place into flower

Harvest each plant when it's ready, keep track of length of veg & length of flower times for comparison purposes.

DRY.

WEIGH.

SMOKE SAMPLE.

Equivalent quality? Equivalent quantity? Who outperformed who?

You might say that this is unfair... the DF'd plant get's longer in veg and more growth time overall... I would say that's the whole point. More veg time & more time alive (an older more mature plant) isn't that generally an accepted high yield technique... grow the plant longer?

The point with DF'ing is that you have an older, denser, bushier (i.e. Bigger) but it takes the same cubic footprint in your flowering space as a younger, less dense, not so bushy non-defoliated plant.

I'm still playing with it myself...

sounds fair enough to me. i would be happy to see this comparison. anyone else have other recommendations for _sound_ side by sides to demonstrate the effectiveness?

 

[TruthOrLie]

What fault did you guys find with slowandeasy's comparisons? He explained his rotating schedule very clearly in other posts and how he was comparing weights. It made sense to me... Unless you're just calling him a liar?

if I recall this was the grow where many plants were crammed under one light.

it wasn't that he was a liar...

it was that the plants were suffocating one another without the defoliation

maybe im mistaken

 

[TruthOrLie]

The distinction that has many confused is:

Defoliating a plant increases yields (always)

vs.

Defoliating a plant helps manage growth so yields aren't diminished in certain situations.


When this thread began defoliation was claimed to be a holy grail of growing, now we are beginning to see its a management technique and not necessarily a yield increasing garuntee

 

[Shcrews]

defoliation in veg is not the best idea IMO, unless you want to stunt your plants for bushier growth

there are better methods of shaping a vegging plant such as topping, FIMing, bending, and even just rotating.

 

[DHF]

Guess I`ll haveta say this 1 more time........This original technique was first seen here and couple other sites after HG went down over 3 yrs ago..........

Jrosek`s setup was to run as many fully rooted cuts on a 4 x 8/5 x 10 table straight 12/12 and strip everything off the plants at day 21 bloom and then again on day 45 to keep each budsicle from growin into the next 1 and chokin each other out for light and environment.......

This Keeftree thread is as off the wall as I`ve ever seen , but by the same token I`ve witnessed smaller setups benefit from this exactly what was originally intended from Jro`s shit........especially vertical runs where more lumen penetration`s possible.......

The only high yields come from packin em in like sardines , gettin rid of the flarf , and allowing the smaller lumen grows to penetrate further depth wise , as to where most of the plants would be trimmed out underneath for the uppers to swell more , but left on this type technique to add end result weight................

Plant numbers dictate yield.....period.....High density SOG tables are by far the easiest setups to run with more plants straight from rooted cut with up to 4 lbs per 1 K with mega cuts under each light.......

That said........It`s simple to see where it works yield-wise for smaller growers , while it REALLY works on flood tables with waaaaaay more cuts per sq ft than the norm 4 per sq ft typical SOG......

Anything outside these parameters are speculation at best for increased yields since I tried it with my Chem D`s at multiple locations using vertical setups and all it did for me was take 2 more weeks to finish my shit than the cycle before I tried it.....

Jro had me convinced from knowin him several yrs before at other sites and I bought it hook , line , and sinker......At the end of the day , I had plants that yielded the same with 2 extra weeks ta get the same yields , but with damn near no trimming......and told his ass bout me losin 2 weeks on rotations that put me behind at EVERY location........

We didn`t get along after that and he disappeared after bein called on his bullshit at other places with regular grows as well.......Go figure.......

Caveat Emptor....Let the buyer beware....Works good with crammin plants in closer than normal on SOG grows or similar circumstances , Sucks under normal conditions with bigger/older plants..............

Peace.....DHF............

 

[Greensub]

if I recall this was the grow where many plants were crammed under one light.

it wasn't that he was a liar...

it was that the plants were suffocating one another without the defoliation

maybe im mistaken

Maybe I was a bit provocative with the use of "liar"

You know... I confused his grow with Delta9nxs, who was doing a perpetual vertical set-up if I recall correctly.

Well, after reading the recent developments on this thread i'm going to put up a few pics as an illustration of what defoliation has done for me.

None of these are “side by sides” as I don't do unit grows.

I harvest a plant a week, perpetual style.

So I can show pics of plants that have been run the same exact way except for defoliation.

I grow small trees with good lighting so you can't call this a bonsai technique.

Pictures, whether they are of side by side plants or of consecutive plants or plants that were grown weeks apart, cannot show true weight. There is no one that can tell the actual weight of a plant by looking at it.

You can just provide relative size indicators and allow the viewer to make their own decisions. And all you can do is report weight.

You can use my 5 gallon buckets as relative indicators if you like. Or perhaps a yardstick in the foliage. Or maybe put several plants in front of a 36” wide door.

I think you all will agree that these things I have mentioned are acceptable relative indicators.

In addition to that I keep accurate weight records expressly so that I can track the differences my changes make.

So I can show you a few plants and tell you how much they weighed. And that's all I can really do as this is a pot site and it is still illegal in most places.

But this still meets the scientific criteria of qualifying as empirical data. This is defined as data that has been gained from measurement and/or observation. Either measurement or observation alone are acceptable for presentation.

I have measured and observed very carefully.

All you real scientists out there know that in the scientific world one party makes claims and puts up evidence and arguments and then other, interested parties who may want to prove or disprove something try parallel or similar experiments in an attempt to replicate results to satisfy themselves.

Why should the world of cannabis be any different?

If you want to prove or disprove this try it for yourselves. It is the only way to really know.

Meanwhile here are a few pics.

This first series has been put up on this thread before but seems to have been forgotten or purposefully ignored.

In this post you see the same plant. It was vegged 8 weeks without defoliation. Then flowered to the end of stretch without defoliation.

At that point I radically defoliated the plant by removing every fan leaf that had a stem. I left single stemless leaves growing out of bud sites. All re-leafing you see in the final series of photos occurred after defoliation.

So, two pics before DF'ing, two pics after, and four pics just before cutting and trimming.

The plant was dried to the point where large bud stems snap.

It weighed 18.38 oz's dry.

It was and still is the largest single plant i've ever grown.

This is a reprint of an earlier post showing some numbers;






k33ftr33z and lifeless, thanks for the compliments on the monster!

i just weighed last weeks plant and it only went 15.80. i guess i screwed up somewhere.

so my last five consecutive defoliated plants went 11.96, 12.35, 14.74, 18.38, and 15.80 for a total of 73.23 or an average of 14.65 each.

my last 5 plants before defoliation averaged 10.49, or 52.45 total oz's.

a total difference of 20.78 or 4.16 zips per plant.

i have been doing a series of changes over the last year to drive up yield and this one, defoliating, has made the largest difference.

at this point i'll stop posting pics and weight here as i think i have proven this technique.

thanks k33ftr33z!
__________________
Passive Plant Killer

these figures are accurate!

Since the 8th of august I have not had a plant under 14 oz's. Some were over 16 oz's. I would say i'm averaging around 15.5 oz's per plant now with defoliating.

Sincerely, delta9nxs

Slow and easy had the crowded closet... you sir are correct.

I agree it was too crowded, should he have decreased his plant count, maybe vegged them a little less so it wasn't so crowded?

he might have managed his canopy a little better (but then... I'm doing something similar... so who am I to talk?)

Now that I remember his grow, I remember slowandeasy not only upped his yield per plant... but didn't he even add one or two more in flower after starting to DF?

Actually... now that I've read lifeless's post maybe I've got him mixed upwith slowandeasy too... I'm gonna have to go back and check.
Sorry I got the two confused.

 

[LifeLess]

I took down 2 Apollolicious today at day 47. Defoliated at day 16 bloom and day 24. Things turned out better than expected. Not only did the lowers get to finish up the middles got larger than usual. There 3 more plants in there that need to finsh 1-bg and 2 chemd.

Day 16 before defoliation


Day 16 after


Day 20


Day 24 before 2nd defoliation


Day 24 after


Day 28


Day 32


Day 36


Day 40


Day 45



Whats left to go 1 bg and 2 chemd

This was from earlier in this thread. What kinda proff we looking for here? Ive been defoliating every grow sence i started doing this. Defoliating has done the exact opposite that it did for DHF. Ive cut a week off the bloom time of a few strains. Peace LL

 

[DHF]

What you witnessed is in a cabinet grow as I most certainly said this shit showed benefits for lower wattage grows.....

Not a "Room" grow with bigger/older plants usin MORE light.......Stresses older plants and require`s "recovery time".....

Doe`s no one read the posts ?........I already said that by leaving the bottoms of the plant`s untouched , increased yields occur with smaller wattage grows since lower wattage lumens can penetrate deeper on smaller plants........

Pretty simple on the "why".........maybe not to some........

Ya`ll figure this out...It`s not rocket science......It`s plant numbers.......DHF........

 

[Greensub]

Delta9nxs was growing larger plants "average 15.5 oz" basically 1 lb plants.

 

[Madrus Rose]

Originally Posted by LifeLess
I took down 2 Apollolicious today at day 47. Defoliated at day 16 bloom and day 24. Things turned out better than expected. Not only did the lowers get to finish up the middles got larger than usual. There 3 more plants in there that need to finsh 1-bg and 2 chemd.

Day 16 before defoliation


Day 16 after


Day 20


Day 24 before 2nd defoliation


Day 24 after


Day 28


Day 32


Day 36


Day 40


Day 45



Whats left to go 1 bg and 2 chemd


This was from earlier in this thread. What kinda proff we looking for here? Ive been defoliating every grow sence i started doing this. Defoliating has done the exact opposite that it did for DHF. Ive cut a week off the bloom time of a few strains. Peace LL
__________________
LifeLess

beautifully done Lifeless ! Great job defoliating !!

This thread is like a sticky trap on the front door of IC mag
for newbies , like insects caught crawling up in a gourd pitcher plant !

 

[DHF]

In what time frame Greensub.........I`ve seen Delta`s thread and learned a lot for passive technique`s , but let`s talk apples , not oranges........

Some folks work off rotations/runs per yr , not increased veg times for 1 lb plants in who knows how long it took for the recovery period included in the finish time of said plant cycle from the stripping /DF........

Just things ta take into consideration that I`ve learned from many yrs of siftin thru the bullshit and watchin the cream rise to the top........mostly from my boy`s on the left coast that run clone factories for the clubs and run crazy flood table numbers in the mega 100`s per 4 x 8........

Peace.......DHF.......

 

[Greensub]

Now for something completely different...

What about defoliating out-doors??? Let's check out a different thread just for fun... it's a long ways from Indoor-Hydro

I can tell you this: if the grape ape cut you are running is the same as the one I ran last year, you need to aggressively prune the long-petioled leaves throughout veg if you want it to put on any real size.

my grape ape did not come from Good Karma. I do have a few cuts that have come to my by way of the collective but not that one. My GA came direct from Kyle Kushman by way of friends in his neighborhood.

The pruning is to allow better light penetration... With the cut we ran last year, I have seen 3x the stretch resulting in (more than) 3x the yield by using this pruning method. My own plant barely stretched at all.

I have seen an entire garden of 9-12 pounders. The person responsible has consistently succeeded at the "last year's biggest is this year's smallest" paradigm. If he continues that success, this year's garden will see no plant smaller than 12.

reservationlabs: nobody would have believed you could get cosistent 7 pounders a decade ago. If they are vegged right and the holes are big enough... I don't see why consistent 15-20 pounders are not possible...

TJO: that sounds like a pretty serious mission... i would say that they are going to run into problems with a plant that old. I'm not saying its not possible... you could train the right strain into a really gigantic squat plant... fill a 100x100 greenhouse with 24" of dank soil and a whole bunch of lights... I could see it... but old plants don't produce as well as young ones according to some experiments my friedns have done. Anyone who has flowered their 2 year old moms will agree that they get better yields from clones cut from her and flowered in the course of a normal growin season. Regardless, I'd like to visit the site where this project is being undertaken!

oh... and schranz...i agree with baet that 2-3 pounders could be acheieved with any of the genetics I have run.... and, if you know the training and feeding specifics really well for each strain, you can work some real magic. I would have never thought that a 7lb grape ape was possible (having grown it) but by pruning the long stemmed leaves aggressively, you can more than double the yield from that strain.

Grape Ape is yummy and, according to repoutable sources, there is a way to aggressively prune and achieve monster status in 200 gallon pots. I may test the paradigm if I can get my hands ion the same cut i ran last year. I only got 1.5#, but let the fan leaves grow un-pruned thru veg.

I know, I know... purely anecdotal, but interesting nonetheless... I don't know what that does to the extended veg time theory... obviously being outdoors they had the same veg time I assume. Unless it was prepped indoors earlier... I guess that's a possibility. That's a great thread that those quotes link to. Definitely good reading.

 

[huntingbb]

So, like, maybe... if you started growing your vegging plants LATER than you start vegging them, you wouldn't have to chop half their leafs off to fit in your veg space.

But why would i do that?

If i'm not scared of the count involved, I would like what i do grow to do its best right? as i'm sure would all of us!

what i'm saying is that if you add another month of veg, while keeping the physical size of the plant similar, what changes?

hm.
1. big ass roots right?
2. huge stalks
3. very thick branches

Now lets look at the difference between 2oz girl in 5gal pot vs a 1lb girl in a 5gal pot - 1., 2., and 3. come into play directly. There are probably a ton of other factors, but in my mind it's like tossing a 350 small block v8 in a jeep wrangler - its a shitton of engine for the car right? well we're doing the same thing here.

Remember all those joes that say veg is like compressing a spring, and flower will let that spring explode? well bigger spring! Thats it!

So if veg lighting is kept constant, plant count goes up, veg time goes up, then what did i lose?

a) well i suppose i have more girls to take care of, that can be a factor, sure.

b) i suppose space becomes a concern. but defol adjusts that.

If one could get the girls to stay in the area without defol that would be fine right? sure! and it can be done with aggressive trimming rather than leaf pruning. topping, etc.



Now lets revizit k33f's original proposal:

He does the long veg, slows the outward growth with de-leafing, then cracks the branches. Look at the wasted VOLUME - its not just the # of branches, etc, its how the space is used, and it's used well. This is certainly not the only technique to address the issue, but its an EASY one, and to me a FUN one, and I can't wait till i get it down.

I'm not scared of having 50 or 60 girls on hand, so why shouldn't i enjoy them? Why not!!!!

Note: total plant count is typically pretty easy to calculate, my count now, may not reflect my count later, nor the count needed for your own grow(s).

figure: 8 weeks flowering, flower in cycles not perpetual.

So we've one set in flowering.

figure: 3 months veg

so we've one set on 2nd-3rd month of veg at all times

figure: cut clones and very well rooted takes a month (I SAID VERY WELL!!)

so we've one set somewhere between cut and starting, and well rooted, etc.

we've allowed 4 months from cut to flower here.

Figure - one or more moms:

Total:

X flowering, X vegging, X 'pre' vegging, and mom.

Get the veg up to get the count down.

And remember - be safe! total count = 3X+M


Additional note: total count stays the same for perpetual, the frequency of the cuttings, and count cut at a time is what would change. perpetual total count = 3X+M

 

[THE PABLOS]

....I would have dropped in a 383 stroker....still a small bock but more torque...it being a Jeep and all...I'd go with the torque.

I am still using quasi defols to stall vegging plants when I need to, open up shaded areas, strengthen flimsy branches, and keep plants more on the squat side but.....

I have the time to work with them through their veg stages.

 

[dramamine]

huntingbb,

nice post

 

[Shcrews]

DHF i think you are one of the most helpful ppl ive ever met

Guess I`ll haveta say this 1 more time........This original technique was first seen here and couple other sites after HG went down over 3 yrs ago..........



Caveat Emptor....Let the buyer beware....Works good with crammin plants in closer than normal on SOG grows or similar circumstances , Sucks under normal conditions with bigger/older plants..............

Peace.....DHF............

so defoliation is for cramped vert and SOG setups i think that what i was saying also.

 

[DHF]

Works good on sunny days , and bad on cloudy ones.......and then your mileage may vary........

Good luck....DHF......

 

[whodare]

im no scientist nor am i an experienced botanist/horticulturist but i remember reading somewhere in my "studies" (aka me high as shit on ic) that mary jane is an apical dominate plant, so if large fan leafs are blocking the leading nodes on the side/lower branches then wouldn't that slow the growth and reduce yeild of said side branches?

if thats true then early in plant life, if your goal was to create branchy growth you could top or fim and take the top two long petiole fan leafs and create a 4-6 top plant.

though im sure it can really depend on srain and growing style. so i mean try it out on a plant see how it reacts, if your any sort of successful gardener you can surely read your plants, right?

idk just putting it out there.

 

[!!!]

The colloidal silver analogy is dumb because that's a YES/NO scenario. It's a clear cause/effect. Defoliation differs in that it is a training technique. Defoliation will not "always" increase yield. It might increase yield depending on your light/setup, or it might not. The more leaves the plant has, the bigger the buds will be, it's logical. More chlorophyll = more energy for the plant to use for whatever it needs. But in some cases, especially growing indoors and especially in small cabs, defoliation may better distribute the limited amount of light available throughout the canopy. One large fan leave shading an entire plant is better taken off. Surface area.

I don't recommend waiting for "evidence" for any training techniques since they are highly dependent on grow room and plant structure. If it works for somebody here, it doesn't mean it's going to work for you. If your 1 plant is surrounded by 3 vertical bare bulbs, then defoliation will likely decrease yields as the plant will not have enough leaf matter to make sure of all the light. If you care, try it yourself.