Zero Veg SOG Clones, thus No Defoil in veg.
This is one week after the day 21 stripping:
Defoliation in place of Lolly pop stripping.
Please continue to update with before/after pics!~ PLEASE!
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Defoliation: Hi-Yield Technique?
- Thread starter k33ftr33z
- Start date
- Status
Please continue to update with before/after pics!~ PLEASE!
Xare
Active member
Clones, 1 week into flower:
Day 21 Before stripping:
Day 21 After stripping:
Day 28, One Week After:
G
gdawg
Nice setup bro ^
Hey Xare,
I'm from Mexico, and I'm your fan, I have to say that your setup is AWESOME, and I'd like to have the link to see your complete thread if you have it, of course. Cheers
Tronkyx
P.S.: Forgive my 5 years old english, it's not my mother language and I've never been in the US, so I hope you can understand.
I'm from Mexico, and I'm your fan, I have to say that your setup is AWESOME, and I'd like to have the link to see your complete thread if you have it, of course. Cheers
Tronkyx
P.S.: Forgive my 5 years old english, it's not my mother language and I've never been in the US, so I hope you can understand.
I just have a quick question guys. Im currently 5 days into 12 12 on some og's in a vert stadium setup. they are way bushier than ive ever seen them i guess because of veggin the last month vert? no complaints on that lol! i can definately tell that i needed to defoliate in order to get light to the whole plant. (isnt that the point of vert?) I actually have very flat plants and hella leaves were basically shielding everything good. i started taking some of the main fans the day before i flipped them, and have been taking a few off of each plant every day since. there is definatly more light to shoots now, but am i killing yield by taking a few at a time as they get in the way? i tuck as many back as possible, and dont wanna kill my nug size or yield. also ive been supercropping the tallest parts since they were small clones and they are all a lil over 3ft at this point. trying to do the net (vscrog) thing soon and figure id trim backs that didnt make it to the net. thanks
sorry guys, got to rambling. basically should i wait till 3 weeks into flower, or did i screw my bud production in any way by removing foliage day before flip? sorry if i wasnt supposed to post twice. new to this. id really like redspagetti's view on this, as he knows his vert. any opinions would be appreciated though. thanks, and ill put up a journal when im done, as i dont really know about this computer stuff and security and all.
Go for it. Cut away, just keep an eye out and don't go cutting away potential killer bud sites. I usually work my way around the outside of the plant cutting away all the fans that are shooting away from the plant. Then I focus my attention on all the foliage shooting towards the middle.
When I'm done if I can look up at the plant, under the foliage / towards the light and if there is no shadows I have done my job. If it's dark in places, well somethings need to be cut.
Now would also be a good time to start getting rid of anything at the bottom of the plant you don't want.
Well, I finally got through this entire thread. I didn't want to post anything until I finished so that I wouldn't be repeating things that had already been covered. It got easier the last few pages after I realized that several posters really had nothing to say, so I could just skip anything they wrote.
Thanks to k33ftr33z, delta9nxs, LifeLess and many others for being kind enough to share their experience and endure.......well, you know what you have had to endure in this thread.
As far as those who have asked/demanded side-by-side comparisons, I wouldn't give them the time of day. If they won't take your word for it now, then it won't matter how many hoops you jump through, they will still want more "proof". Experienced growers know when things are significantly better just the same as they know when things begin to go wrong. k33f (et. al.)'s word and their pics are good enough for me to at least try this method. I like to see for myself.
But I have to lmfao at the ones who came in and said they tried defol. for themselves and it doesn't work. If ten different people tell me something works well, and they even have pictures to back it up, and I try it and I don't get similar results, I start trying to figure out where I went wrong. I don't tell them that they are wrong! I can jump into a swimming pool and it takes me about 5 minutes to get to the other side. That's because I'm a lousy swimmer. But I'm not going to tell Michael Phelps that swimming doesn't work. And if you can't improve your yields by aggressively pruning your plants, then either figure out what you might have done wrong or JUST DON'T DO IT. But don't be a dumbass and tell someone who is doing it with success that it doesn't work. That's just plain stupid.
Thanks to k33ftr33z, delta9nxs, LifeLess and many others for being kind enough to share their experience and endure.......well, you know what you have had to endure in this thread.
As far as those who have asked/demanded side-by-side comparisons, I wouldn't give them the time of day. If they won't take your word for it now, then it won't matter how many hoops you jump through, they will still want more "proof". Experienced growers know when things are significantly better just the same as they know when things begin to go wrong. k33f (et. al.)'s word and their pics are good enough for me to at least try this method. I like to see for myself.
But I have to lmfao at the ones who came in and said they tried defol. for themselves and it doesn't work. If ten different people tell me something works well, and they even have pictures to back it up, and I try it and I don't get similar results, I start trying to figure out where I went wrong. I don't tell them that they are wrong! I can jump into a swimming pool and it takes me about 5 minutes to get to the other side. That's because I'm a lousy swimmer. But I'm not going to tell Michael Phelps that swimming doesn't work. And if you can't improve your yields by aggressively pruning your plants, then either figure out what you might have done wrong or JUST DON'T DO IT. But don't be a dumbass and tell someone who is doing it with success that it doesn't work. That's just plain stupid.
S
Slow Stone
^^^
Words of wisdom.
In a month i will be one of aggressive pruners, "k33f (et. al.)'s word and their pics are good enough for me to at least try this method. I like to see for myself."
Words of wisdom.
In a month i will be one of aggressive pruners, "k33f (et. al.)'s word and their pics are good enough for me to at least try this method. I like to see for myself."
If the method is as simple as removing leaves to increase yield, it shouldn't be asking too much for some more precise results.
Demanding more precise results is a little different.
If I'm one out of 10 that saw no improvement, aren't my results still as valid? How would you feel to take on this technique and ruin your yields/harvest? Wouldn't you have appreciated someone warning you that this just may not be the technique it appears to be?
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of ways to grow a plant.
If someone learns something that works, share it.
If someone else tries what someone else has tried and it does not work, share it.
This is the only way to make progress.
Not giving the time of day to valid concerns and comments just because "it works" for you is being very closed minded.
Telling someone to "just try it" because other people have tried it with success is unfair because the mechanism does not seem to be fully understood...
...with legitimate side by sides the proof will be in the pudding
First, my creds. Before I retired, I created, researched and deployed various computer models designed to identify changes in the direction of certain financial markets and to predict future price movements. In an industry where only about 5% of the participants are considered successful, industry publications ranked me in the top three in the world. So I think that I can safely say that I know a little about statistical analysis and research.
There is nothing in this thread that even vaguely resembles statistically reliable research and I don't recall k33f or any of the others claiming otherwise. What we have here is anecdotal evidence. That does not mean that the observations are not valid. It just means that the level of reliability is not as high as some might desire. We use anecdotal evidence all the time to influence our behavior. Much of the basis for medical use of mj is anecdotal, primarily because the legal climate discourages true research. But even if research were allowed and even encouraged, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get statistically reliable research because so much of the process in this case is subjective. Reliable data would require fields of plants, not just gardens. Even then, something like we are talking about here relies too much on the individual grower.
Moving on, everyone has his own comfort level when it comes to anecdotal evidence. Early adopters, who require less "proof" are taking more risk and, thus, either reap earlier rewards if successful or suffer loss if unsuccessful. I believe LifeLess is a good example. Late adopters have lower risk of loss but also are much slower to reap the benefits. Then there are those who will never be convinced, no matter how much evidence you give them.
There is nothing in this thread that even vaguely resembles statistically reliable research and I don't recall k33f or any of the others claiming otherwise. What we have here is anecdotal evidence. That does not mean that the observations are not valid. It just means that the level of reliability is not as high as some might desire. We use anecdotal evidence all the time to influence our behavior. Much of the basis for medical use of mj is anecdotal, primarily because the legal climate discourages true research. But even if research were allowed and even encouraged, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get statistically reliable research because so much of the process in this case is subjective. Reliable data would require fields of plants, not just gardens. Even then, something like we are talking about here relies too much on the individual grower.
Moving on, everyone has his own comfort level when it comes to anecdotal evidence. Early adopters, who require less "proof" are taking more risk and, thus, either reap earlier rewards if successful or suffer loss if unsuccessful. I believe LifeLess is a good example. Late adopters have lower risk of loss but also are much slower to reap the benefits. Then there are those who will never be convinced, no matter how much evidence you give them.
It is as simple as removing leaves....and it is not. In research, I always go from the macro to the micro. First you determine if you are convinced that there is enough value in the tech to continue testing. Then, all other things being reasonably constant, you begin adjusting (fine tuning) a single variable like when to prune. Of course, you have to know the growth patterns of the strain you are testing. In SWAG research(that's Scientific WildAssed Guess) you can use previous grows as a loose form of "control". At this point, if I were using 10 plants I might alternate between pruning 5 days before the expected end of stretch and after the end of stretch. Then you evaluate the results. If one seems better than the other, then your next test moves pruning a little more in the direction that seemed better. Depending on how precise you want to get, it could take a couple of dozen cycles to just dial in that single pruning. Then you would move on to another parameter like a second pruning later in bloom. Most people are not going to be interested in doing so much work and they probably don't need to. We already have some rough guidelines in this thread. Pruning at the end of stretch seems to be a very good starting point.
"Demanding more precise results is a little different."
You aren't in the position to demand anything. Many people have been kind enough to share their observations in this thread. If you want more, get off your ass and do it yourself. Nobody here is going to spoon feed you.
"If I'm one out of 10 that saw no improvement, aren't my results still as valid? How would you feel to take on this technique and ruin your yields/harvest? Wouldn't you have appreciated someone warning you that this just may not be the technique it appears to be?"
No your results are not as valid. k33f posed a hypothesis and offered his own evidence. I don't know k33f, never read a post by him before this thread. So I'm neutral in the beginning. Then along come experienced growers to say that they have done it and that it works. GreySkull comes to mind, among others. Leaning much more toward the tech. Then come early adopters who start using the tech and are posting successful results. LifeLess and others. Somewhere along in here a reasonable person would decide that the hypothesis has been proven. Once it is proven, you cannot disprove it. All your results shows is that you couldn't do it. Says much more about you than about the tech. I wouldn't advise anybody to just jump in 100% on anything new. But if they, or I, did and ruined an entire harvest, well, shit happens. You are always at risk. I once lost about 20 Lifesaver clones when a mouse or rat got into my grow and went all beaver on them. And, no, once I am satisfied that a tech works, I don't appreciate somebody sharing their incompetence unless they can also tell me what it is that they did wrong.
"If someone learns something that works, share it."
exactly
"If someone else tries what someone else has tried and it does not work, share it."
Well, yea, if they can also give some insight as to why it didn't work for them. It doesn't help to say "this fert killed my plants." if you don't also say "because I gave them 10 times the recommended dosage".
"Not giving the time of day to valid concerns and comments just because "it works" for you is being very closed minded."
No, being closed minded is saying "I couldn't do it, so it doesn't work."
"Telling someone to "just try it" because other people have tried it with success is unfair because the mechanism does not seem to be fully understood..."
Maybe somebody "told" someone to "just try it", but I don't remember who. What I do remember is k33f practically begging people not to try it. "unfair"?? What the hell has fair got to do with any of this? Nobody is getting their arm twisted in here. What are they going to do? ban you from ICMAG if you don't start stripping leaves? Man up. Grow some hair on your legs. Take that pacifier out of your mouth and accept some personal responsibility. I bet you don't fully understand electricity but I bet you still flip the light switch when you come into a dark room. That has got to be the most ignorant argument against trying this technique over the last 122 pages. Do you think it's going to open up a wormhole and suck you into another dimension??? I'd like to see that very short list of all the things you do understand fully. lol
"...with legitimate side by sides the proof will be in the pudding"
If you had any idea of what significant research involves, you would know that a "legitimate side by side" is virtually impossible in a situation like growing; especially in numbers like we here are going to have. There are way too many variables, many of which are highly subjective. The few things that are not so subjective are still subject to variation. Like weight vs weight. W v. w must assume exact same conditions. But is the humidity exactly the same throughout both samples? Were they trimmed exactly the same? If the person doing the trimming is leaning one way or the other, did he subconsciously leave maybe 1/16inches more stem on buds from one sample or the other?
The bottom line is this: several folks have been kind enough to share observations and techniques that they have found to be useful and productive. Nobody is saying that you must do the same, but you can if you want to. If you do try it and you feel that it is beneficial to you, good for you. Keep up the good work and if you vary the technique and think your changes worked better, share it. If you try it and you don't think it helped you, have enough sense to analyze your effort to determine why you didn't get the kind of results most others have gotten. It may be strain specific. But, most likely, it is you. If you figure out what went wrong, share it and keep others from making the same mistake. If you can't figure it out, feel free to ask questions. But if you can't figure it out, don't want to learn, and just don't want to try it anymore: fine. Feel free to leave and you shouldn't feel any need to return to this thread. Why would you want to?
First, my creds. Before I retired, I created, researched and deployed various computer models designed to identify changes in the direction of certain financial markets and to predict future price movements. In an industry where only about 5% of the participants are considered successful, industry publications ranked me in the top three in the world. So I think that I can safely say that I know a little about statistical analysis and research.
There is nothing in this thread that even vaguely resembles statistically reliable research and I don't recall k33f or any of the others claiming otherwise. What we have here is anecdotal evidence. That does not mean that the observations are not valid. It just means that the level of reliability is not as high as some might desire. We use anecdotal evidence all the time to influence our behavior. Much of the basis for medical use of mj is anecdotal, primarily because the legal climate discourages true research. But even if research were allowed and even encouraged, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get statistically reliable research because so much of the process in this case is subjective. Reliable data would require fields of plants, not just gardens. Even then, something like we are talking about here relies too much on the individual grower.
Moving on, everyone has his own comfort level when it comes to anecdotal evidence. Early adopters, who require less "proof" are taking more risk and, thus, either reap earlier rewards if successful or suffer loss if unsuccessful. I believe LifeLess is a good example. Late adopters have lower risk of loss but also are much slower to reap the benefits. Then there are those who will never be convinced, no matter how much evidence you give them.
It is as simple as removing leaves....and it is not. In research, I always go from the macro to the micro. First you determine if you are convinced that there is enough value in the tech to continue testing. Then, all other things being reasonably constant, you begin adjusting (fine tuning) a single variable like when to prune. Of course, you have to know the growth patterns of the strain you are testing. In SWAG research(that's Scientific WildAssed Guess) you can use previous grows as a loose form of "control". At this point, if I were using 10 plants I might alternate between pruning 5 days before the expected end of stretch and after the end of stretch. Then you evaluate the results. If one seems better than the other, then your next test moves pruning a little more in the direction that seemed better. Depending on how precise you want to get, it could take a couple of dozen cycles to just dial in that single pruning. Then you would move on to another parameter like a second pruning later in bloom. Most people are not going to be interested in doing so much work and they probably don't need to. We already have some rough guidelines in this thread. Pruning at the end of stretch seems to be a very good starting point.
"Demanding more precise results is a little different."
You aren't in the position to demand anything. Many people have been kind enough to share their observations in this thread. If you want more, get off your ass and do it yourself. Nobody here is going to spoon feed you.
"If I'm one out of 10 that saw no improvement, aren't my results still as valid? How would you feel to take on this technique and ruin your yields/harvest? Wouldn't you have appreciated someone warning you that this just may not be the technique it appears to be?"
No your results are not as valid. k33f posed a hypothesis and offered his own evidence. I don't know k33f, never read a post by him before this thread. So I'm neutral in the beginning. Then along come experienced growers to say that they have done it and that it works. GreySkull comes to mind, among others. Leaning much more toward the tech. Then come early adopters who start using the tech and are posting successful results. LifeLess and others. Somewhere along in here a reasonable person would decide that the hypothesis has been proven. Once it is proven, you cannot disprove it. All your results shows is that you couldn't do it. Says much more about you than about the tech. I wouldn't advise anybody to just jump in 100% on anything new. But if they, or I, did and ruined an entire harvest, well, shit happens. You are always at risk. I once lost about 20 Lifesaver clones when a mouse or rat got into my grow and went all beaver on them. And, no, once I am satisfied that a tech works, I don't appreciate somebody sharing their incompetence unless they can also tell me what it is that they did wrong.
"If someone learns something that works, share it."
exactly
"If someone else tries what someone else has tried and it does not work, share it."
Well, yea, if they can also give some insight as to why it didn't work for them. It doesn't help to say "this fert killed my plants." if you don't also say "because I gave them 10 times the recommended dosage".
"Not giving the time of day to valid concerns and comments just because "it works" for you is being very closed minded."
No, being closed minded is saying "I couldn't do it, so it doesn't work."
"Telling someone to "just try it" because other people have tried it with success is unfair because the mechanism does not seem to be fully understood..."
Maybe somebody "told" someone to "just try it", but I don't remember who. What I do remember is k33f practically begging people not to try it. "unfair"?? What the hell has fair got to do with any of this? Nobody is getting their arm twisted in here. What are they going to do? ban you from ICMAG if you don't start stripping leaves? Man up. Grow some hair on your legs. Take that pacifier out of your mouth and accept some personal responsibility. I bet you don't fully understand electricity but I bet you still flip the light switch when you come into a dark room. That has got to be the most ignorant argument against trying this technique over the last 122 pages. Do you think it's going to open up a wormhole and suck you into another dimension??? I'd like to see that very short list of all the things you do understand fully. lol
"...with legitimate side by sides the proof will be in the pudding"
If you had any idea of what significant research involves, you would know that a "legitimate side by side" is virtually impossible in a situation like growing; especially in numbers like we here are going to have. There are way too many variables, many of which are highly subjective. The few things that are not so subjective are still subject to variation. Like weight vs weight. W v. w must assume exact same conditions. But is the humidity exactly the same throughout both samples? Were they trimmed exactly the same? If the person doing the trimming is leaning one way or the other, did he subconsciously leave maybe 1/16inches more stem on buds from one sample or the other?
The bottom line is this: several folks have been kind enough to share observations and techniques that they have found to be useful and productive. Nobody is saying that you must do the same, but you can if you want to. If you do try it and you feel that it is beneficial to you, good for you. Keep up the good work and if you vary the technique and think your changes worked better, share it. If you try it and you don't think it helped you, have enough sense to analyze your effort to determine why you didn't get the kind of results most others have gotten. It may be strain specific. But, most likely, it is you. If you figure out what went wrong, share it and keep others from making the same mistake. If you can't figure it out, feel free to ask questions. But if you can't figure it out, don't want to learn, and just don't want to try it anymore: fine. Feel free to leave and you shouldn't feel any need to return to this thread. Why would you want to?
Agree, I am not a research analyst but am quite prepared to observe, study and listen to other peoples results. I may not agree with them, so be it. They may not agree with how I grow, so be it.
It would be unwise, however, to ignore other peoples observations and results because you just might miss out on something worthwhile.
I think it's fascinating how people conduct their grows, some quite bizarre, makes no sense at all but to the person involved makes perfect sense......and works.
After all..........
" I do not agree what you have to say,but I'll defend to the death your right to say it ".......VOLTAIRE
I don't defoliate, I do single cola SOG'S and I'm sticking with my way but I'm always looking at other methods and appreciate the guts and ingenuity to try something different.
D
DHF
You know........The best "sig" quote I`ve seen in a while is right above me from High Country........
We don`t have the right to keep anyone from voicing their opinions.......regardless of ours........
If you run rooted cuts straight 12/12 jampacked next to each other , monocrop , and dial your strains/varieties in a solid SOG setup to see how many more you can cram in under your lights footprint every run till they`re maxed out for sq ftg , then and only then will yas know there`s not a more efficient yield per setup/sq ftg.........
Jro`s mindset was with his BOG cut he stripped at day 21 and 45 for max lumen penetration down into his canopies that were lil over double normal amounts of cuts side by side that can`t HELP but increase yields if you think about it in the same sq ftg normally done at 128 plants @ 4 per sq ft on conventional 4 x 8 tables........
Plant numbers dictate yield in X amount of area under X amount of light as long as they don`t haveta compete for light and environment thus where the stripping came about to keep em from chokin each other out side by side in front and back of each other......ain`t rocket science....just good plant management...................
Stripping leaves off plants causes different things at different times in the plants life.......already posted my experience......knowing when to use it to your benefit means everything if you intend to try it.....
Plants get too big and strippin em shuts em down.........guaranteed...DHF.......
...
We don`t have the right to keep anyone from voicing their opinions.......regardless of ours........
If you run rooted cuts straight 12/12 jampacked next to each other , monocrop , and dial your strains/varieties in a solid SOG setup to see how many more you can cram in under your lights footprint every run till they`re maxed out for sq ftg , then and only then will yas know there`s not a more efficient yield per setup/sq ftg.........
Jro`s mindset was with his BOG cut he stripped at day 21 and 45 for max lumen penetration down into his canopies that were lil over double normal amounts of cuts side by side that can`t HELP but increase yields if you think about it in the same sq ftg normally done at 128 plants @ 4 per sq ft on conventional 4 x 8 tables........
Plant numbers dictate yield in X amount of area under X amount of light as long as they don`t haveta compete for light and environment thus where the stripping came about to keep em from chokin each other out side by side in front and back of each other......ain`t rocket science....just good plant management...................
Stripping leaves off plants causes different things at different times in the plants life.......already posted my experience......knowing when to use it to your benefit means everything if you intend to try it.....
Plants get too big and strippin em shuts em down.........guaranteed...DHF.......
...
LOL. SWAG research!
I'll give you points on that...
...no one demanded anyone do anything.
I think it was suggested that someone do something to show more concrete results.
Maybe I will get off my ass and do it myself, when I have some. I don't right now.
I'm too busy arguing opinions of scientific semantics anonymously on the internet.
I'll give you points on that...
...no one demanded anyone do anything.
I think it was suggested that someone do something to show more concrete results.
Maybe I will get off my ass and do it myself, when I have some. I don't right now.
I'm too busy arguing opinions of scientific semantics anonymously on the internet.
bs0
Active member
If it didn't work for you, detail your setup and your method and perhaps you could have been taught to improve.
Personally I quit responding in this thread because of people like you, and I get fantastic results from my leaf pruning.
Anyone who has grown a plant knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do a perfect side by side. And why would we do it for some arrogant person who thinks that talking down to people who have more experience than themselves is a reasonable way to interact.
What we did here: methods were described and results were described.
Yes, it can be described as 'simply removing leaves to increase yield'. Not really an incredibly complex concept you should need to be hand-held through.
Why would someone who failed a technique detail what they did to fail?
Do you want to copy a failure?
When did I ever say the technique failed or didn't work?
My stance is grounded in the belief that _if_ defoliating increases yields, it is not by the mechanism of "providing more light to lower bud sites" but by something else.
My problems with this whole thread is several pages back I asked for input on what to do if the plant is showing deficiency. Should I continue to defoliate or should I fix the problem first? If you all are just removing damaged/burned leaves, then I don't see the benefit. Those leaves are on their way out already. If you are removing healthy leaves, then what do you do when the plant is unhealthy?
Then I thought about how everyone says they notice all these huge buds after removing leaves.
Wells guess what happens a week later into flowering? Your buds look BIGGER! Whether you defoliate or not.
Not one person in this thread has said "check out this side by side thread" or "check out what so_and_so says one page 1234 of this thread"
The responses in this thread overwhelmingly is "try it for yourself, if it doesn't work for you try something else."
Well I'm sorry if I've stunk up this whole thread. It just seems kind of incomplete.
People here keep offering anecdotal evidence and all empirical evidence offered which has detracted from this method is denied as having any application.
Do you want to copy a failure?
When did I ever say the technique failed or didn't work?
My stance is grounded in the belief that _if_ defoliating increases yields, it is not by the mechanism of "providing more light to lower bud sites" but by something else.
My problems with this whole thread is several pages back I asked for input on what to do if the plant is showing deficiency. Should I continue to defoliate or should I fix the problem first? If you all are just removing damaged/burned leaves, then I don't see the benefit. Those leaves are on their way out already. If you are removing healthy leaves, then what do you do when the plant is unhealthy?
Then I thought about how everyone says they notice all these huge buds after removing leaves.
Wells guess what happens a week later into flowering? Your buds look BIGGER! Whether you defoliate or not.
Not one person in this thread has said "check out this side by side thread" or "check out what so_and_so says one page 1234 of this thread"
The responses in this thread overwhelmingly is "try it for yourself, if it doesn't work for you try something else."
Well I'm sorry if I've stunk up this whole thread. It just seems kind of incomplete.
People here keep offering anecdotal evidence and all empirical evidence offered which has detracted from this method is denied as having any application.
I mean, look how many times my post has been quoted/duplicated!
Why can't you quote someone showing success? With a demonstration possessing scientific soundness? Where someone who says it works shows temps/humidity/start-to-finish one plant defoliated, one plant not. Same container size, same nutes, same watering schedule?
Would you even water a defoliated plant the same as one with all its foliage? I doubt it.
If defoliating is so simple, I don't see why its so hard to put one plant next to another. One defoliated, one not.
I would conduct a test myself, but I hardly see a point considering you all would just tell me I screwed up somewhere else if you don't see the results you want to see.
Oh, and based on my own SWAG research, I _do not_ see a big difference between my last crop with no defoliation and this crop with.
...but my environmental conditions has changed greatly, so I don't put much value on my data.
Why can't you quote someone showing success? With a demonstration possessing scientific soundness? Where someone who says it works shows temps/humidity/start-to-finish one plant defoliated, one plant not. Same container size, same nutes, same watering schedule?
Would you even water a defoliated plant the same as one with all its foliage? I doubt it.
If defoliating is so simple, I don't see why its so hard to put one plant next to another. One defoliated, one not.
I would conduct a test myself, but I hardly see a point considering you all would just tell me I screwed up somewhere else if you don't see the results you want to see.
Oh, and based on my own SWAG research, I _do not_ see a big difference between my last crop with no defoliation and this crop with.
...but my environmental conditions has changed greatly, so I don't put much value on my data.
bs0
Active member
Why would someone detail what they did to fail? Maybe so other people can help fix their method?
Knowing what causes failure (a red berry might make you have the shits!) is almost as important as knowing what causes success.
re: your theory of why it works
I'm glad you have a detailed theory of something you have never done or witnessed done. Your baseless theory really has no place here unless you want to back it up with something. Personally, I don't give a damn what your baseless theory is, and am not going to do research on my lovely crops to disprove your baseless theory. My argument against your theory would simply be 'have you never seen underdeveloped green-ass little popcorn buds?'. Also: thanks for your information that my plants grow. I had wondered about it in the past, but now with your astute observation I may now be convinced that from week to week there may be growth...
If my plants were to begin to show deficiencies, I would give them cal-mag. That almost always works. If they show another type of stress-related distress I would stop doing anything that could case them additional stress. That would include stopping pruning their leaves, lowering the ambient temperature, reducing the fertilizer concentration etc. etc.
I used to get 10-12 z a rack. Now I've been getting 18-24. I defol differently with each strain I grow too. Unfortunately, it is also an extremely time-intensive method. And you get sticky-ass fingers. And there are some strains it doesn't seem to impact greatly. This is why I say, give it a shot. And by saying 'give it a shot' I mean try a little at a time and see if people can achieve positive results. That's how I started, I was sick of the shitty wispy green popcorn buds so I tried to uncover them. Once I started the results were good enough to convince me to continue and I haven't stopped since.
The plant is VERY resilient! I did this test somewhere on page 102 to see what would happen if I remove every leaf. The plants recovered and have a lot of internodes.
I don't suggest going this far but it shows that defoliation won't kill the plant.
Notice that if I left just a few leaves (the middle plant) then those leaves grow and the rest of the branches are ignored. It makes sense. The plant will only focus on surviving leaves. If I removed EVERY single leaf then the plant grows back out evenly.
BEFORE
AFTER
AFTER 2-3 WEEKS
I don't suggest going this far but it shows that defoliation won't kill the plant.
Notice that if I left just a few leaves (the middle plant) then those leaves grow and the rest of the branches are ignored. It makes sense. The plant will only focus on surviving leaves. If I removed EVERY single leaf then the plant grows back out evenly.
BEFORE
AFTER
AFTER 2-3 WEEKS
- Status
