Answer to all of those defoliation threads

[waterdawg]

God I love this shit!!! And yes mods come on!!! With the prestige, glamour, and what I'm sure is copious amounts of money comes some responsibility...... . Also I've been reluctant to say it...but yes I too use miracle grow on my outdoor plants. Thanks for allowing me to speak freely UB! If you say its ok how could anyone slam me for it. I feel like a giant load (load hahaha) has been lifted (dropped).

 

[Hydroburn]

The whole advanced section should just be shut down tbh. Anything remotely experimental or advanced just gets trolled until locked. Like this thread serves absolutely zero purpose except to bitch. what we need is a carebear thread section to move trash like this and other garbage that clutters up potentially useful experiments. It's a complete joke to think that anything advanced or new will be discussed.

 

[Hydroburn]

It is the responsibility of all experienced growers with actual knowledge to stop newbies from thinking this is an acceptable practice. And by actual knowledge I for one have also grown for most of my life and I am 57, I also worked for a paneled research biologist who is widely published and respected in her community. There is nothing scientific about these claims of trials or results, just a feedback loop self reinforcing this (at best questionable) practice.

all I see when i read this is some european from the 1400s with a cup of tea and monacle in his eye telling me the world is flat earth is the center of the universe and years of scientific evidence makes it so.

 

[chuck estevez]

I gotta ask, where's Chuck? I'm kinda missing the cartoon links I enjoy so much! Hmmm oh well must be a work day.

 

[CaretakerDad]

all I see when i read this is some european from the 1400s with a cup of tea and monacle in his eye telling me the world is flat earth is the center of the universe and years of scientific evidence makes it so.

Here is the only cup that counts, and I believe that 2011 is a little more current Like I said in another thread lab testing and peer review, the real kind not some flat screen fantasy.









I apologize for the poor quality of the bubbler photo, I'm a farmer not a photographer.

 

[chuck estevez]

I Just figured out the answer to defoliating.

these guys don't grow good enough weed, so they aren't stoned enough and need something to do.
I'm usually to stoned and lazy to go pull leaves off my girls.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Here is the only cup that counts, and I believe that 2011 is a little more current Like I said in another thread lab testing and peer review, the real kind not some flat screen fantasy.

View attachment 3155737

View attachment 3155738

View attachment 3155739

View attachment 3155742

I apologize for the poor quality of the bubbler photo, I'm a farmer not a photographer.

Does having possession of a plant that's high in THC somehow validate you as a grower? I'm not quite sure what the point of that post is.

Surely you understand that the level of cannabinoids present is primarily due to genetics, right?

Congrats on the nice strain though....and the certificate

 

[a senile fungus]

Hey Dad, don't spank the children TOO bad.

I don't know what aggravates me worse, the stupidity or the poor moderation (or lack thereof) at RIU. Take Sunni for example (or any of the other dozen mods per forum that's supposed being doing something worthwhile for the community), folks make mod reports and nothing happens, she watches the thread go very hateful and ballistic and then when it's totally out of control starts randomly deleting posts, both good and nasty. It's like an apple grower who finds diseased branches on 20 of his trees and goes through and starts randomly slashing branches with a machete with no rhyme or reason.

Have participated in (got sucked into) many RIU defol threads and they are start with the same stupid pretenses and end up in the same old shitfests.

Now, for folks who want a viable explanation of why man creates his own popcorn, here's my thoughts on the apical dominance affect regarding big versus small buds. Here's a guy that starts taunting my out of the blue and me being the nice guy with a big heart, gave him a decent answer.

a senile fungus said: ↑

* Why can't we discuss how removing leaves is a way of redirecting hormones in the plant as well?


Because it doesn't work that way. Growth hormones, mainly auxins, collect in the apical parts of plants. That would be branches and roots. The newest perimeter growth gets those collections first which if above ground would be the top of the plant/tree/shrub and at the ends top to bottom. Look up the concept of apical dominance and you'll have a better understanding of what's going on. Ever watch an oak tree grow? It puts out whorls of branches with the fastest growth being at the top and then perimeter, reason why it has that rounded canopy profile.

When you top a plant, the auxins are redistributed to the ends of what's left which induces dormant buds at and near that location to push. The stuff at the far bottom and inside the canopy is shit outta luck - it doesn't get even/fair consideration in the plant kingdom.

UB

https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/page-3

Caretaker, you're gonna do well.

I don't doubt your results and it's proof-positive that there are thousands of ways to make this plant grow. However, since we really have nothing to gauge what the plant might have looked like had nothing been removed, we can only assume it would probably look different. None of us could possibly say what that difference would have been.
Although you are 'redirecting' hormones by removing growth, you're also diminishing somewhat the capacity the plant has to continue to produce the hormones we all love so much. People sometimes think by removing lower growth hormones do some kind of automatic march to the top colas. Science has shown this not to be the case whatsoever. Yes, those hormones must be redirected, no choice here. The plant will simply disperse them locally to feed the next nearest pathway. It's simply a system of plumbing going on in there.
In a perfect world we could all agree there can't be one steadfast rule on how cannabis should be grown but for some reason, we have a group of people here that continue to feed the confrontation with juvenile name-calling and claims of perfection with their growing. The whole idea of passing information along to others in a forum like this is so you can learn and decide for yourself which system of plant management best fits your needs. Some people take a basic approach, some like to kick it up a bit with a few new techniques. Why the hell do people in this forum get so pissed when someone isn't growing like they are? Get real and get out of kindergarten.
If some of you people spent more time off the keyboard and your face buried in some real reading (god forbid even a book) you might find yourself surprised at your potential.

Thank you for the response.

I don't believe this diminishing effect is as detrimental as many believe it is, because of complete control of environmental factors in an indoor setup. My plants are not wanting for food, light, water, nor protecting themselves from pests or competition. The limiting factor in a perfect indoor setup is really the plant itself...

The plant will disperse them locally and feed the next nearest pathway.

Yes, this is how it works. Translocation within the plant via phloem, or plumbing as you say. So when I remove a set of fan leaves the hormones and nutrients that were going to that leaf set will continue up the plumbing and make its way to the next set of tissue, most likely more, smaller leaves and budsites towards the distal aspect of that particular branch? So this might encourage a bushing type of effect that we see when we defoliate and also explain how those smaller branches are getting buds to become more filled up?

I have no formal education in botany and would welcome a response that is not demeaning, but rather informative.

Once again I appreciate the response in the first place, and thank you for not being condescending.

 

[a senile fungus]

The issue isn't that these "experts" are thinking of the newbs and protecting them; its that these people only want the newbs to follow their paradigm, and any other other way is, in their eyes, the wrong way to do it.

 

[CaretakerDad]

The issue isn't that these "experts" are thinking of the newbs and protecting them; its that these people only want the newbs to follow their paradigm, and any other other way is, in their eyes, the wrong way to do it.

There are many ways to make this plant flourish, tearing off the leaves is not one of them. Period.

 

[a senile fungus]

There are many ways to make this plant flourish, tearing off the leaves is not one of them. Period.

Show me a peer-reviewed, triple-blind, scientific study that supports this position specifically regarding defoliation of the cannabis plant. Thanks.

 

[chuck estevez]

Show me a peer-reviewed, triple-blind, scientific study that supports this position specifically regarding defoliation of the cannabis plant. Thanks.

I could show you a hundred defoliating threads that end with 0 results.

 

[CaretakerDad]

Show me a peer-reviewed, triple-blind, scientific study that supports this position specifically regarding defoliation of the cannabis plant. Thanks.

You're the one with the big ideas, where is your study (of any kind) that supports this nonsense?

 

[a senile fungus]

There aren't any, why are you people so adamant about stopping defoliating when if you would let a thread finish to completion then the results would just prove your point?

 

[a senile fungus]

There are many ways to make this plant flourish, tearing off the leaves is not one of them. Period.

You made the claim, burden of proof is yours.

 

[CaretakerDad]

You made the claim, burden of proof is yours.

No penile fungus, the burden of proof is on you. Please conduct your "experiment in triplicate" and report back to me, I know what works.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Uncle Ben actually started once again to defend the merrits of defoilation when there was never any debate about it, again ironic!

Say what?

 

[killemsoftly]

No penile fungus, the burden of proof is on you. Please conduct your "experiment in triplicate" and report back to me, I know what works.

SOG (sea of green) has been used for decades with success. It's a specific approach. The majority of those here at RIU who use it and have done so for as much as 2 decades (to my knowledge) don't bother arguing with you as they consider it a waste of time. They yield up to 2 lbs on a 1000w in 8 weeks. No veg. Straight from clone. Used sog tek and stripped bottom 1/3 of plant at end of wk 3.

What's UB's yield? 4-10 oz per 600w. He argues quality over quality. I don't buy it.

Joke. Your emperor has no clothes. You have guzzled his kool-aid. congrats.

I had a very specific tek question so I asked UB a month or 2 back in the nutrient section. He would not help me. I got a smart ass answer. I was respectful. I concluded he is not here to help.

Your position and that of UB's is not about helping. It is about ego. good luck with that.

 

[a senile fungus]

Lol, @penile fungus. That's a good one! He's creative, I'll admit

 

[AlecTheGardener]

No penile fungus, the burden of proof is on you. Please conduct your "experiment in triplicate" and report back to me, I know what works.

It works both ways I think . . .