Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?

[TruthOrLie]

Back to back grows are just as scientific and valid as any side by side.

Your choosing to not accept the Data because its not shown in a Side by Side.

But we know what our GPW ratio is, and if it goes up by using this technique then it works as a high yield tek. Its as simple as that.

Only if you control for temperatures and feeding schedules and humidity.

If the grow before was a few degrees cooler overall because it was during the winter, and now your grow is a few degrees warmer in the spring with higher humidity by 2% who is to say the increased yield isn't from changes in other conditions instead of defoliation?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Back to back grows are just as scientific and valid as any side by side.

Your choosing to not accept the Data because its not shown in a Side by Side.

But we know what our GPW ratio is, and if it goes up by using this technique then it works as a high yield tek. Its as simple as that.

I was thinking about that earlier. a few grows each way worth of GPW data would certainly be valid data to be added to the body of evidence available for review.

I dunno why anyone is offended by the peer review and requests for evidence. That's how any reasonable scientific claim gets verified. The claim and the evidence is dissected and examined and criticized and discussed and reviewed, until it is verified or debunked.

Perhaps you have pointed out something blatant there about over pruning, there has to be some sort of balance. I removed all huge fan leaves first then day by day the ones with no flowers that are paired with flowering stems are removed as slowly as the flowering stems produce the leaves of there own... i have not touched any of them and i don't plan to... if that makes any sense to anyone lol

I can see the validity of that approach. Fan leaves that are not immediately associated with a bud could be beneficial to remove during flower, in gardens where is it causing the leaves which are associated with a bud to be shadowed.

Perhaps it is the term defoliation which is rubbing some of us the wrong way. Defoliated is taken by many people to mean stripped of leaves. In fact the term originates from the latin "defoliat" which literally means ‘stripped of leaves’.

Removing some of the leaves is more 'leaf pruning' than defoliating. I do remove a few of the leaves from most plants in the course of pruning and LSTing, but don't really consider it to be defoliation.... just proper pruning.


Thank yous to those who have posted up quantifiable results of some type for contributing to the body of peer reviewable data.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Only if you control for temperatures and feeding schedules and humidity.

If the grow before was a few degrees cooler overall because it was during the winter, and now your grow is a few degrees warmer in the spring with higher humidity by 2% who is to say the increased yield isn't from changes in other conditions instead of defoliation?

The gpw figure from multiple grows done with and without defoliating would be a good data set.

 

[Xare]

Only if you control for temperatures and feeding schedules and humidity.

Growers who gets consistent yields have control over those things.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

2. The light that does not "even reach a part of the plant at all" is an illusion. The light which APPEARS to not reach is the part in the shade. The shade looks like shade because the green light, which we are so perceptive to is reflected by the green leaves. The other color spectrums of light PASS THROUGH the leaves and are subsequently absorbed.

Can you please document this claim? for some reason it does not seem completely accurate to me.

 

[MicroDude]

Only if you control for temperatures and feeding schedules and humidity.

If the grow before was a few degrees cooler overall because it was during the winter, and now your grow is a few degrees warmer in the spring with higher humidity by 2% who is to say the increased yield isn't from changes in other conditions instead of defoliation?

So you must have skipped over post 1648 that shows the weight of 10 consecutive grows.

You cant have a side by side grow be exactly the same either.

Can you really tell me the plants absorbed the exact same amount of nutes? Can you really be sure the humidity is the same on one side of your room as the other? Do you measure airflow to be sure it is the exact same on both sides of the room? Maybe you are just making some assumptions as well. Try not to be so anal.

 

[halitzor]

I have some Bubba Kush that are 4 weeks into flower, and they love defoliation. The buds at the bottom are the same size as all the other buds, except the top colas.

When it comes to the final trim each plant will take at most 10 minutes. IMO anything that helps the plant, and the final trim is a winner.

I would be more than happy to do a side by side but I've been there and done that. I have found that yield, and overall quality of the plants health to be better with defoliation.

pics or it didnt happen

 

[slowandeasy]

Just because you have more 'jars' of weed doesn't prove anything.

Sometimes an ounce fills up one jar, sometimes two.

Depends how fluffy your nugs are.

Fluffier nugs appear to be more bud, but are actually less.

Unless you do a side by side comparison, you can not draw conclusions scientifically.

Even if you do a side by side comparison, everything but ONE variable must be the same.

If you don't do a side by side and compare your yields, what about differences in humidity from last grow and this grow?

What about differences in ambient temperature between this grow and last grow?

What about differences in lights out temperatures when plants are sleeping?

What about maybe you scooped a tad bit more fertilizers into your watering can this time?

What about maybe you watered a tad less?

Maybe you say everything is THE EXACT SAME except now you defoliate... but you ALSO change the container size where your plants roots grow?

There is more to add to this list, but these are some things to consider before deciding that cutting off a plants leaves is the reason the performance has changed in final yield.

I have already stated ALL of my buds are denser than usual and I have almost 2x the amount of jars. And for the 14x I will post my yield in a couple of days.

My room is always the same all year round.
I use Blumats, I set my drip rate the same every grow
They get fed the same nutrients everyday, all of my plants eat the same mix ALWAYS.

I did say I downsized to a 1 Gallon Smart Pot, from a 2 gallon. If you use a Regular pot the roots will become root bound and your plant will not produce as much....that is why people UP pot. Smart Pots trim the roots, so you can grow a much larger plant in a much smaller container.

If you think a regular 1 Gal pot will out yield a 2 gal pot, you are on crack. It wont happen. I was expecting a reduced yield, because if I was using regular pots it would reduced yield for sure. And I do not want to hear " some strains do better in smaller containers" I have been running the same plants for a very long time, I know how they grow. And before I used Smart Pots I used both 2 gal regular and 1 Gal regular pots.

With Regular pots, no comparison. The 1 gal will not even come close. The plants do not produce nearly as much and they are much smaller. Show me some proof otherwise, since you want proof from everyone else.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

So you must have skipped over post 1648 that shows the weight of 10 consecutive grows.

You cant have a side by side grow be exactly the same either.

Can you really tell me the plants absorbed the exact same amount of nutes? Can you really be sure the humidity is the same on one side of your room as the other? Do you measure airflow to be sure it is the exact same on both sides of the room? Maybe you are just making some assumptions as well. Try not to be so anal.

Did you skip over the portion of post number 1648 that said "i have been doing a series of changes over the last year to drive up yield"

Now... 10 consecutive grows is bound to take at least a year.

So... I'm not discounting his results, or his weights, by any means... but let's not pretend it was a conclusive experiment in a tightly controlled setting.

The data is good data to add to the body of knowledge, and has significance... but it does not have the level of significance some seem to ascribe to it.

If it were ten consecutive grows, where defoliation was the only MAJOR variable... I'd be sold.

Also if We'd call it 'leaf pruning' instead of 'defoliation' then most of the contention would go away. I think that everyone here has good motives... some want to share something they've found helpful, and some don't want anyone to get confused and over-prune their garden to its detriment.

Scientifically minded people cannot help but be nitpicky, where evidence is concerned... We have to make damn sure that the evidence actually indicates what it appears that the evidence indicates.

 

[slowandeasy]

1. I called you a dumb ass because you stated my comment was one of the dumbest things you read in a long time.

2. The light that does not "even reach a part of the plant at all" is an illusion. The light which APPEARS to not reach is the part in the shade. The shade looks like shade because the green light, which we are so perceptive to is reflected by the green leaves. The other color spectrums of light PASS THROUGH the leaves and are subsequently absorbed.

3. The circling of roots causes the pot to become completely filled of roots with no spaces for oxygen. The roots become restricted by themselves.

4. Airpots RESTRICT the roots from strangling themselves by air-pruning, or air-restricting, the roots. Your roots are recieving much more oxygen. If you cut the size of the pot down... more roots restricted.

5. I began my discussion in this thread actually AGREEING with _you_ but you have some serious reading comprehension issues.

6. Sorry for suggesting you're a dumbass.

Sorry bro, but you are not making sense. Have you used Smart Pots before? The roots are not restricted at all, they poke out in EVERY direction. They are always growing and getting trimmed at the same time. The whole point is that they DO NOT restrict roots...they are free to grow with out restriction. WOW seriously!

You said it yourself that a regular pot restricts the roots by circling. Have you seen the roots after using a Smart Pot vs a Regular pot? You also agree that going down a pot size is restricting the roots. Show me an example of people who went from down from 2 Gal to 1 Gal regular pots and did better.

There is no illusion that light is reaching further down in my tent. Yes light can pass through leaves, but the more leaves you have the less penetration. Leaves are not transparent, they diminish the light. Have you ever noticed that areas that do not get any light die off on their own? If light reaches it....it WILL grow.

I accept your apology, thank you for that...but your still missing the points on a few things. I have a question for you tho. Do you think a 1 gal Smart Pot and a regular 1 Gal pot would yield the same? Since you think they do not help at all.


BTW, They use Smart Pots and Air Pots to grow actual Trees and it is a proven fact that they do what they claim to do. Just for you I will find the info.

 

[slowandeasy]

What is air pruning?

Air pruning is a natural process occurring when a root comes in contact with the air on the side of the porous Smart Pot wall. The root tip stops growing (pruned) and causes the remaining root to extensively branch. Now, instead of fewer circling roots, the plant develops new lateral roots. New, fibrous roots fill the Smart Pot allowing the plant to maximize uptake of both moisture and nutrients. And when the roots grow well, the plant grows well. Upon comparison, root systems that developed in a Smart Pot have a much greater mass or volume then those found in hard-sided plastic containers. Plants grown in Smart Pots have greater root mass in less soil.




And here are some scientific facts for you. Read and learn.

http://www.smartpots.com/academic-studies

 

[delta9nxs]

hey, head! how, hi are you?

actually, as i run a perpetual harvest scheme, one plant in and one plant out every week, those figures are from single plants harvested one week apart over ten consecutive weeks. five before DF, five after.

my grow environment is totally under control and fairly constant.

since i began using this technique i have not harvested a plant under 14 oz's.

before utilizing it my largest plant was around 12.5 oz's. average about 8-10 oz's.

so, i can say that it has greatly improved my yield done this way, which is at the end of stretch only. one time.

i use strong vertical lighting. see my thread for details of how i grow.

i have run a series of plants through like this, maybe 10 or 12 by now and my weights are consistently higher.

about five weeks ago i began DF'ing at onset of flower and again at 21 days. looks promising. i will have results from the first in a few weeks.

in a effort to be as fair as possible i have begun DF'ing in veg starting at the end of the second week. we'll see.

at this point i think that there is more going on than just light. knna stated earlier that he thinks a sudden all over DF'ing produces some type of hormonal change. i think so, too.

later, d9

you know, you are right about peoples reactions to a name describing a technique. i guess DEFOLIATION sounds like MURDER or RAPE or SACRILEGE to some people.

maybe we should call it "the happy result from lovingly de-leafing" thread. might not inflame as many folks.

d9

 

[k33ftr33z]

You are right, I am defensive...because I am right! Preach all you want about wasted light. Wasted light is light never getting there in the first place. I told you, the leaves are back in a week and the light never hits the floor until I defoliate again.. By the time I harvest, the Buds are so big, it does not hit the floor and they are dense all the way down. Try to do that with a 400 watt light in a small tent. I can promise you, it is not strong enough to penetrate dense foliage all the way down if it is shaded.

You did not answer me tho. What happens when you put too many plants in your grow room? Will they produce as much as if you took out a couple and gave those quality plants more light? Same theory, excess shading equals less bud. If you even try to say I am wrong...you are really high.

I am absolutely with you, slowandeasy.

I may have said much earlier in the thread is that if there is no light hitting the floor you have too much leaf. My "floor" is actually designed in to the compartment to be the base of the plant. The buckets drop through the tabletop so there is a reflective field just below the plants and yes I do want light to hit it so that it reflect right back upwards. Those who even have a floor for the light to reach may want to tighten up the design. Those who are fussing over whether light should hit the floor don't realize it also hits the buds on the way to the floor and then reflects back instead of hitting leaf and thats the end of it.

I leave the thread for a couple of weeks and a few new hardcore deniers show up with briefcases full of evidence about photosythesis and the function of leaves....ad nauseum.

I think one poster said it best that they should start their own thread promoting leafage.

Defoliating is a management technique. It is not something that is done side by side to reach conclusions about what is better. It is a technique to control crowding and boost yield in those crowded conditions instead of resorting to regressive techniques like removing branches and sites that obviously are there to produce.

I do not know why these deniers insist on so much literary hot air when a simple trial of their own would reveal if the technique may be useful in their own setup. No one is twisting their arm. The pictures show the results and my 3 decades and hundreds of cycles of experience assure me I am doing the right thing.

 

[150wclub]

Hey delta9nxs

i'm in week 2 of flower i'm about to defoliate in a week. should i remove all fan leaves with a stem all at once or should i do it in a span of a few days.

Thanks.

 

[k33ftr33z]

Having pics of plants without showing a side by sides proving that the defoliated plant yielded more is basically useless. That is not proof of anything except that a defoliated plant can grow and yield well, but surely does not come close to proving that defoliated plants increase yield... The burden of proof lies on the party that made the claim not the detractors, especially being that SCIENCE is on the side of the detractors. The question is not if their will be ill effects but if it will actually increase yields, which no one has even attempted to prove in this entire thread. It was definiately an amusing thread with all of the mud that has been slung.

I for one am anxiously awaiting some type of actual objective evidence.

You will be waiting a long time my friend. Better you try it yourself and see if it has utility in your particular setup.

I have said repeatedly that defoliation is a management technique, to manage crowding and maximaize yield in crowded conditions.

Side by side is absolutely impractical and will reveal nothing. I defoliate in veg repeatedly en route to preparing an individual to be a 10oz+ finisher. That takes about 6 weeks. To take a side by side is ridiculous. One leafy plant in six weeks will completely take over a veg space used for a dozen prepping individuals.

What we are dealing with is widely different perceptions overlaying so many variables like plant size, timeline, spacing etc. If you have ever gotten to such crowded conditions and never decided to pull a single leaf completely amazes me.

 

[johnny butt]

Too bad to watch this thread go down the toilet like it has... I see valid points to both sides, and that's why I've started to defoliate the way I do.



I maintain a constant canopy. If a leaf is blocking a bud site, and there is enough leaf behind it to absorb its portion of the light I will remove it completely.

If the leaf is blocking a bud site, and removing it would create a gap in the canopy, I do the tuck method, and simply pull the fan leaf back and under (behind in my case) the canopy. Light shining through the canopy is missed energy, any way you want to spin it.



Things I've noticed from a few grows using this technique to different degrees... Your experiences may be different, but I'll add mine to the pool of info...

- A massive defoliation where you strip all or a majority of the leaves will slow down the plant. They are stressed, and will require some time to recover. This may or may not make a plant more bushy... I just saw the growth slow down and will not be repeating a massive defoliation.
- I've noticed little to no benefit from defoliating during veg, except possibly for space concerns.
- Bud sites that receive more light grow bigger and denser.
- Defoliating can be a useful technique for increasing yields if used appropriately.


JB

 

[TruthOrLie]

So now we are discussing smart pots vs regular pots in a defoliating thread?

My point is you can not deduct that the defoliation has created the response you have noticed based on your experiences.

Try defoliating the same plants in 1 gallon and 2 gallon smart pots, side by side.

If the 2 gallon pot out performs the 1 gallon pot then you have concluded that the pot size is negligible... or not the reason for the increase, so yes, then defoliating may be responsible.

Did you decrease the amount you watered your 1 gallon pots vs. 2 gallon pots?

How do you know you weren't over/underwatering your 2 gallon pots.

I'm not trying to argue if defoliation or smart pots are responsible for higher yield.

What I'm trying to argue is your scientific data collection process is seriously flawed.

If that works for you, great.

It doesn't work for me.

 

[slowandeasy]

So now we are discussing smart pots vs regular pots in a defoliating thread?

My point is you can not deduct that the defoliation has created the response you have noticed based on your experiences.

Try defoliating the same plants in 1 gallon and 2 gallon smart pots, side by side.

If the 2 gallon pot out performs the 1 gallon pot then you have concluded that the pot size is negligible... or not the reason for the increase, so yes, then defoliating may be responsible.

Did you decrease the amount you watered your 1 gallon pots vs. 2 gallon pots?

How do you know you weren't over/underwatering your 2 gallon pots.

I'm not trying to argue if defoliation or smart pots are responsible for higher yield.

What I'm trying to argue is your scientific data collection process is seriously flawed.

If that works for you, great.

It doesn't work for me.

I use Blumats, they keep a constant moisture level. If you read my posts you will see I set them to drip every 4 seconds. You are the one who told me that Smart Pots did not help at all, I just wanted to school you. Since you cannot grasp the concept. It does work for me, and that is all that matters. If it does not work for you, quit posting here. You just keep repeating your non-sense. You and your "What if" questions. Maybe you are just pissed off because people grow better than yourself.

 

[Massproducer]

I totally understand how and why you are using defoliation bro, and I honestly feel everything your doing, I scrog basically everything and am a major tucker. That works well for me to help manage my canopy above my screen. While not exactly the same, its kinda similar... I totally agree in order to maximize your potential you want to be lighting as many growing shoots as possible within the canopy...

The problem is that a lot has been thrown out by others, not you or the others using this as a management tech, but by many others as defoliation being a general way to increase yields, regardless of the situation, this is what others seem to be stating is being proven by the pics. THIS and only this is what I am stating can not be proven just by the pics alone. Kudoos for your work bro,
respect

You will be waiting a long time my friend. Better you try it yourself and see if it has utility in your particular setup.

I have said repeatedly that defoliation is a management technique, to manage crowding and maximaize yield in crowded conditions.

Side by side is absolutely impractical and will reveal nothing. I defoliate in veg repeatedly en route to preparing an individual to be a 10oz+ finisher. That takes about 6 weeks. To take a side by side is ridiculous. One leafy plant in six weeks will completely take over a veg space used for a dozen prepping individuals.

What we are dealing with is widely different perceptions overlaying so many variables like plant size, timeline, spacing etc. If you have ever gotten to such crowded conditions and never decided to pull a single leaf completely amazes me.

 

[Japanfreakier]

Oh man this thread is getting twilight zone weird.

The naysayers are now saying:

More bud doesn't mean anything
More jars doesn't mean anything
More oz doesn't mean anything
Pics don't mean anything

Anybody starting to see a pattern? lol