Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?

[iampolluted]

ok, you realize we feed our plants sugars. the plant doesn't need to store them in larger leaves if it's supplied to the roots anytime it needs it. that's why the damn things keep growing. we feed the fuckers. it's not short of food, so it doesn't need a storage tank to continue growth.

and there is no way your getting 100% light with a reflector compared to a bare bulb. if you think you are fucking crazy.

dr does your keyboard have a . on it, or don't you know how use it?

 

[DrFever]

J i think i am going to be pretty dam close preflowers are there few more days and full flower mode will be happening i just raised my scrog table and swear prior to doing it i had out of all the 4 " squares probably no more then 20 some empty so yes with some 4 " squares having 2 bud sites in allot of them its going to be crazy shit load of buds my previous grow was 5x8 scrog 5 plant 2 k and made 4.75 pounds dry so adding 7 more feet as well 1800ppm of c02 that alone will ad 15 - 25 percent more yield plus 7 more feet and another 1k i usualy yield 12 to 15 0z dry per plant this time i got 12 plants but we will see sure i make 7 min

 

[whodare]

ok, you realize we feed our plants sugars.

Is that so?

Here I thought we feed 17 elements in their ionic form. Where have I been?

the plant doesn't need to store them in larger leaves if it's supplied to the roots anytime it needs it. that's why the damn things keep growing. we feed the fuckers. it's not short of food, so it doesn't need a storage tank to continue growth.

No. It uses leafs to produce sugars and carbohydrates, which are stored in leafs/roots, and utilized for fruits/flowers


Your ignorance of basic plant biology is quite apparent

 

[Jbonez]

ok, you realize we feed our plants sugars. the plant doesn't need to store them in larger leaves if it's supplied to the roots anytime it needs it. that's why the damn things keep growing. we feed the fuckers. it's not short of food, so it doesn't need a storage tank to continue growth.

and there is no way your getting 100% light with a reflector compared to a bare bulb. if you think you are fucking crazy.

dr does your keyboard have a . on it, or don't you know how use it?

Plants assimilate sugars for energy from co2 and photons.

They can only absorb chelated mineral nutrients, not sugars.. Feeding carb products is for bennies, but thats another topic.

 

[DrFever]

ok, you realize we feed our plants sugars. the plant doesn't need to store them in larger leaves if it's supplied to the roots anytime it needs it. that's why the damn things keep growing. we feed the fuckers. it's not short of food, so it doesn't need a storage tank to continue growth.

and there is no way your getting 100% light with a reflector compared to a bare bulb. if you think you are fucking crazy.

dr does your keyboard have a . on it, or don't you know how use it?

what sugars are you feeding your plants ?????

plants make there own sugars and starches and store them in the leafs from there they distrubute them all over the plant yes even back to the root system if need be when feeding your plant the nutrients just don't go up the plant its gets broken down and root absorbs what it needs that is why root system temps are important for gas exchange. and also root mass = yield

 

[Bud buster]

So what are your numbers like? For perspective of course.

Id hardly compare yourself to Aristotle my friend, his results were intuited, yours are not, rather, its a test you personally find favorable.. Subjectivity, unfortunately is only perceived to be objective buy the perpetuate of the theory...

I haven't started to flower yet and have been out of the scene for many many years after growing for over a decade but I use to be the one arguing with a good bud to not strip his leaves because I thought they needed every solar panel he proved it to me in yield but I wasn't believing it until he left one plant that didn't get striped it was thinner less branching less bud only slightly taller with a old parabolic hood and a 400.
I then started doing it myself it works from my experience years ago we didn't do it as much as I'm doing it now I have done it four times in six weeks I have two thick fat bushes that are about three feet.
I have mixed up my soil hopefully eliminating my purple stems problem my night temps get a little low I'll be setting up a veg room next to my flower room to give the flowers heat at night and will transplant from 4 gallons to 20 soon then strip and veg for a week then flower with a 1000 watt striping again after stretch and again at 45 days then a few days before chop to give any shaded bud light and do most of my trim work on the plant.

People have shone numbers from one grow to the next showing this works in the past 253 pages some didn't notice any difference but they may have only done it once and didn't take much off, it will not work for every strain but I don't remember anybody reporting less yield just more.
This thread is only argued by people who have never done it so how can they know anything about this.

 

[iampolluted]

ok here we go....this is probably gonna be hard to follow but screw it here goes.

i didn't say a 4 month veg time....you're not paying attention obviously.read your own posts.

actually, my plants are 24" tall, or bigger usually. i flower @ a foot, no less. any less and it's not worth it, i've tried it. mostly though, that depends on genetics and stretch.fair enough

you guys seem to have missed the point where a leaf is a leaf regardless of size. that 2" leaf still produces the same shit a 10" leaf does.produces the same food but 10'' produces 5x more
just like every person is made up of the same molecular structure.?? it's the same in every leaf. i, personally, don't strip em all, but a few here and a few there over the course of a couple weeks. they still grow vertically, and tend to branch a little. i don't want a lot of branching but i do want em to start a branch to produce more larger nuggets on the ends, than little buds farther down. pinch out the lower buds
my branches average 4"-6" and it ends up almost all bud,pics? the only leave are the one below the branch. op has large long branches and imo is wasting bud space. i'm growing bud, not sticks and leaves.

more leaf does NOT equal more bud.. it equals more leaf/shade. i dont grow buds in the shade i lollypop and/or scrog
skinning plants does not equal less food. it does it equals less shade. small leaves still produce food for the plant.yup but not as much.
less growth? wtfe, it looks different, it doesn't mean it's growing less. it looks like its got less bud, more sticks.
airy bud? you must be on crack. not on crack lol light penetration = denser buds. shaded areas = larf. pics??
simple fact? bullshit!

dr....little leaves are still transpiring, still producing food. how much energy is being used trying to sustain the greenery in a larger leaf?none it sustains itself and enough food for the plant too.
it's not getting bigger, it's staying the same size, only to fall off at some point.all leaves fall off at some point.
how many smaller leaves do you lose throughout the grow? my guess is very little, if any. that is until they reach full growth and stop. why are the oldest leaves the 1st ones to fall off? hmmmm seems like they stop producing food for the plant at some point and the plant rids itself of excess weight and energy loss trying to keep it when it doesn't need it exactly the plant will get rid of leaves which are not functioning fully. hence theres no need to defoliate

....kinda like when a body builder drops weight before a show. to reach it's peak physical condition. in their eyes, water weight is wasted weight, and that is exactly what a larger leaf is...water weight. bodybuilders drop bodyfat and excess water for shows to thin the skin and to expose all the muscle they can.
bodybuilders are at their weakest and least healthy point at a show and eitherway are nothing like cannabis plants anyway.


i read my post....it says. i don't have time to grow a plant for 4 months. i made no mention of veg time. try again....

What is the function of the plant leaf?
Answer:
Primary function of the leaves :
Leaves are the physical "platform" for the process of photosynthesis.
The cells in the leaf contain chloroplasts; these contain chlorophyll which converts carbon dioxide and water to simple glucose sugars in the presence of sunlight. not needed, people overfeed in most cases.
This food is used (and stored) by the plant to grow and reproduce. keyword, stored. meaning should it be starved of food but it's not, see above...
As plants are able to produce "food" they are normally referred to as "producers". if they are fed well, they don't need to be a producer.

Other functions of leaves are:

To increase the photosynthesising surface area of the plant to maximise the production of food. not needed if fed well
To provide a large surface area for transpiration and gaseous exchange (through the stomata).doubtful this changes the rate of the entire plant when leaves are removed
To assist in the collection of water for the plant; some leaves are funnel-shaped in order to actively collect water which is then directed to the roots. Leaves also form a canopy of the tree collecting rainwater from a larger area which is then led (through run-off) to the root zone of the plant. not needed
The leaves provide shade and shelter to the stem and root system below. not needed, especially when there is bud there. try again.....

it does not mean less food. it means less storage area. see above. try again.

i guarantee you grow more "sticks" than i do. my sticks have 1 big bud on em. not 2, and i'm not pinching any bud. why the fuck should i if it's not larf? try again.

there's still a need to defoliate if it's shading bud. why would it be any different in regards to the location of the leaf? weather it's the top or bottom?

i don't need to pics to know shaded buds are smaller than unshaded ones. i've seen it, and you know you have too. wait, you told me to just cut it off....try again.

yep body builders drop weight to expose their muscles all they can...a plant focuses all it's energy into maximum muscle (bud) growth. they don't keep retaining water for training, they are pushing their energy into bud production in hopes of reproduction. try again...

 

[Jbonez]

edited

 

[DrFever]

Yo bud buster the purple stem issue is caused from either genetic traits which is not bad by all means or your room temps are to cold lights off

hey guys i am thinking this site needs like a mute button lol something where you mute a member and you don't see his posts lol

 

[Jbonez]

edited

 

[whodare]

I haven't started to flower yet and have been out of the scene for many many years after growing for over a decade but I use to be the one arguing with a good bud to not strip his leaves because I thought they needed every solar panel he proved it to me in yield but I wasn't believing it until he left one plant that didn't get striped it was thinner less branching less bud only slightly taller with a old parabolic hood and a 400.

Ok sure...

I then started doing it myself it works from my experience years ago we didn't do it as much as I'm doing it now I have done it four times in six weeks I have two thick fat bushes that are about three feet.

Let's see this three foot bush(that took 6 weeks), if it's anything like your other pics, well....

4 gallons to 20 soon then strip and veg for a week then flower with a 1000 watt striping again after stretch and again at 45 days then a few days before chop to give any shaded bud light and do most of my trim work on the plant.

So 7 week veg at least? How much per plant?

People have shone numbers from one grow to the next showing this works in the past 253 pages some didn't notice any difference but they may have only done it once and didn't take much off, it will not work for every strain but I don't remember anybody reporting less yield just more.
This thread is only argued by people who have never done it so how can they know anything about this.

Anecdotal evidence at best, and most people arguing against it are commercial growers, and people educated in plant biology/horticulture/agriculture.






Here is a post that has some legitimate sources

Please don't rip all those energy producers off.

A few large fans blocking lights to lower nodes, or at the end of cycle to prevent mold(ie harvest day pull leafs, and as you harvest the lowers can mature and avoid late cycle humidity)

Touchy subject for sure, but fact is all the bro science in the world doesn't change the fact that if your plants are producing to the max and you strip leafs you will reduce yields.

Grape farmers and cotton farmers know what I'm talking about as both practice defoliation, in grapes fruit sites with corresponding leaf sites defoliated yield less but it helps prevent powdery mildew and botrytis in humid environments. Cotton farmers defoliate after the plants are fully ripe to prevent pests and mold during the harvest, as the cotton stands in the field after ripe until they get to them.

My copper clad deposit, for what it's worth


http://openagricola.nal.usda.gov/Record/IND23224003

Quantifying the effect of leaf area loss on sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) yield caused by hail, pests, and diseases is important in the management of this crop, both from a technical and economic point of view. The effect of defoliation depends, however, on the foliar surface eliminated and on the growth stage at which this takes place. This effect has been quantified in the USA, but these data are lacking for specific conditions of Europe. The aim of this paper was to determine the response of sunflower cultivation to several levels of defoliation that took place at different growth stages under European growth conditions. Four field trials were conducted by applying four defoliation treatments (nondefoliated control, 33, 66, and 100%) at different growth stages ranging from preflowering (R2) to physiological maturity (R9). Crop yield loss increased with increasing level of defoliation. Preflowering stage R3 was the most sensitive. At this stage a 100% defoliation of the leaf surface resulted in 92% yield loss, reducing both the number of seeds per head and 1000-seed weight. A 100% defoliation at stage R7 (back of head a pale yellow) caused a 50% yield loss, while at stage R9 (physiological maturity) defoliation had no effect on yield. The yield loss caused by defoliation at different plant growth stages under European conditions differed slightly from the one designed for U.S. conditions.

http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/44655/1/pab158-96.pdf

McAlister & Krober (1958) demonstrated that 40% defoliation near seed initiation resulted in only a 9% reduction in yield, whereas an 80% defoliation caused a 32% yield loss. With 50% of defoliation during the reproductive period Camery & Weber (1953), Gould (1960), Daugherty (1969) and Turnipseed (1972) encountered yield reduction, whereas during the vegetative stage soybean yield was not affected (Hanway & Thompson, 1967; Todd & Morgan, 1972).
Higher defoliation levels (67 and 100%) also interacted with the development stage of soybean, as Begun & Eden (1965), Gazzoni (1974) and Gazzoni & Minor (1979) reported no yield reduction on vegetative stages, while progressive reduction on reproductive stage was found, as also reported by Hanway & Thompson (1967) and Todd & Morgan (1972). Fehr et al. (1981) demonstrated that, in both determinate and indeterminate cultivars, the most sensitive stages to defoliation were R5 or R5.5, with 80% yield loss when 100% defoliation was applied at these stages. With total defoliation, Goli & Weaver (1986) found greater yield reduction with 100% defoliation applied at R4 or R5, than at R6. Caviness & Thomas (1980) reported only 13-17% yield loss for defoliation at R4 to R5.5, showing that even at critical stages, soybean plants can stand considerable leaf loss. A defoliation of 70% at R6 reduced yield by 20% (Turnipseed & Kogan, 1987). Board et al. (1994) reported that 100% defoliation at R6.3 resulted in 40% yield reduction, whereas defoliation at R6.6 caused 20% yield loss.

http://www.actahort.org/books/931/931_42.htm

Abstract:
In the old-world viticulture autochthonous varieties are an important inheritance because they can provide wines with authenticity and distinction. Cultivar Mandó is an almost extinguished variety from the south-east of Spain with very large and tight clusters. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of early defolia¬tion as a possible tool to reduce cluster compactness, improving fruit composition. With this in mind, an experiment was conducted with ‘Mandó’ in deficit irrigated vines trained with a divided Lyre system. Control (C), non-defoliated vines, were compared with defoliation carried out either just before anthesis (phenological phase H, (Def-H)), at flowering (phenological phase I, (Def-I)) or at fruit set (phenological stage J, (Def-J)). In all the defoliation treatments, leaves from the first eight nodes, including laterals, were removed. The experimental design was a complete randomized block with three replicates per treatment and 24 experimental vines per experimental plot. As an average for all defoliation treatments, berry number per cluster, berry weight and yield were reduced by 44%, 16% and 45%,in Def-H, Def-I and Def-J respectively. Defoliation increased berry soluble solids concentration only in the Def-H treatment. On the other hand, berry acidity was only decreased in the Def-H treatment. In the ED and LD defoliation treatments, leaf pulling improved berry quality determined by a berry tasting panel. In agreement, berries from the ED and LD also had higher total phenolics, anthocyanins and tannin concentration. Results obtained were judged positively by the winery owners and defoliation, particularly at stage J, will now be more widely conducted in the vineyards planted with the ‘Mandó’ cultivar. The research is indeed an example of a successful transfer of a research technique under commercial situations.

http://ajevonline.org/content/61/3/372.abstract

Early defoliation is a novel cultural practice for crop management in grapevines. The effects of timing (prebloom or fruit set) and method (manual or mechanical) of early defoliation on yield and grape and wine composition of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Graciano and Carignan grapevines were investigated. Leaf removal induced a substantial increase in both cluster exposure and canopy porosity. Yield was significantly reduced by defoliation in both varieties. Yield per shoot was reduced between 30 and 70% by manual and mechanical leaf removal prebloom. In both varieties, postflowering leaf removal was ineffective at modifying fruit set, number of berries per cluster, or yield per shoot. Botrytis incidence was also reduced by leaf removal. Prebloom defoliation allowed full recovery of the leaf:fruit ratios to that seen in nondefoliated vines. Grape soluble solids and wine alcohol concentration were not affected by defoliation. Malic acid decreased with leaf removal at fruit set. Genotype-environment interactions on berry acidity variables such as titratable acidity and tartaric acid concentrations were found. Early leaf removal substantially increased anthocyanin and phenol concentration in grapes and wine of both varieties. In Carignan, early leaf removal resulted in heavier berries, which nevertheless had enhanced grape and wine color. These results support the hypothesis that in early-defoliated vines, the relative growth of various berry organs is affected independently from absolute berry mass. Mechanical early defoliation has the potential to be a cost-effective technique to control yield and to improve grape and wine composition.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111212124553.htm

 

[Jbonez]

Whodare, if a man is blind, will it be you who makes him see? This is futile, pointless and without logic. We are all blessed with gifts, however cognitive and intellectual fortitude is not evenly distributed, unfortunately...

 

[whodare]

ok here we go....this is probably gonna be hard to follow but screw it here goes.

.

Yes because your making it all up...

you guys seem to have missed the point where a leaf is a leaf regardless of size. that 2" leaf still produces the same shit a 10" leaf does.

Haha ok maybe in stoner science land...

....kinda like when a body builder drops weight before a show. to reach it's peak physical condition. in their eyes, water weight is wasted weight, and that is exactly what a larger leaf is...water weight.

Great analogy...

Get a fucking clue you have no idea what is spewing out your mouth... Well you may have an idea but it's still wrong.

 

[whodare]

Whodare, if a man is blind, will it be you who makes him see? This is futile, pointless and without logic. We are all blessed with gifts, however cognitive and intellectual fortitude is not evenly distributed, unfortunately...

I couldn't rep you any more but this one really split my sides

 

[iampolluted]

dude with all due respect, you haven't proven a damn thing to me or anyone else with your posts in this thread. you haven't added anything substantive in terms of why it's bad other than it stores sugars. no shit sherlock, but if you're feeding the fucking plant sugars, it doesn't need to create it to store it. is that difficult to understand?

explain which parts i'm incorrect about and prove me wrong.

 

[iampolluted]

keep doing what you're doing guys. it works for you. to discredit others grows because you're too fucking stupid to understand the reasoning behind the method only means you're a closed minded mother fucker who doesn't accept things they don't understand, or won't try.

more light = more bud period. i get light top to bottom, you don't, even in your vert x-mas tree.

 

[Jbonez]

I couldn't rep you any more but this one really split my sides

Ive studied the works of Carl Jung, and am well aware of the percentage of the population with the ability to use logic, its astounding really, but in time ive learned to not blame them for it, no more than I would want to be blamed for sucking at football, Im a slim build guy, just wasnt in my cards, lol...

 

[whodare]

dude with all due respect, you haven't proven a damn thing to me or anyone else with your posts in this thread. you haven't added anything substantive in terms of why it's bad other than it stores sugars. no shit sherlock, but if you're feeding the fucking plant sugars, it doesn't need to create it to store it. is that difficult to understand?

explain which parts i'm incorrect about and prove me wrong.

I'm not addressing you after this post.

plants do not eat sugar

What don't you understand?

There is no need for me to post sources, if you don't understand that there is no helping you...

 

[whodare]

Ive studied the works of Carl Jung, and am well aware of the percentage of the population with the ability to use logic, its astounding really, but in time ive learned to not blame them for it, no more than I would want to be blamed for sucking at football, Im a slim build guy, just wasnt in my cards, lol...

Stop, really, your killin me here...

 

[Jbonez]

edited