a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Me too. If i had to do it all over again i would of put way more effort to my veg area to begin with. As far as lighting goes that is.I have to add this to this circular argument.
Me too. If i had to do it all over again i would of put way more effort to my veg area to begin with. As far as lighting goes that is.I have to add this to this circular argument.
... articulate it.
: there is a point of diminishing returns
I read his posts.Go read it yourself. In the words of sativied, You're making a strawman argument.
A massive amount of veg time went into the pics you posted. Millions of months for sure.Please, these are just random photos from the internet. Can you not see where the canopy begins and ends and that there is no structure below the canopy? And that if you were to continue vegging these plants beyond their optimum height and volume, you would literally be growing more stem to trim?
I don't know how to explain it any simpler: there is a point of diminishing returns where it doesn't matter how long you veg for - you are simply wasting time and energy on growth that will not develop into full flowers:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
THAT is why g/kWh. It removes that pitfall.DING DING DING DING DING DING. So you WILL yield more, but you will bump into diminishing returns!! FUCKING DUH!
THAT is why g/kWh. It removes that pitfall.
No. I am not. I am arguing efficiency of yield. What other argument is there? Especially when you won't set it in stone for honest discussion?Right, but like I said, you're making a completely different argument (which is also one of his arguments but one I've done nothing but vocally agree with)
Seriously, you're a fuckwit.DING DING DING DING DING DING. So you WILL yield more, but you will bump into diminishing returns!! FUCKING DUH!
No. I am not. I am arguing efficiency of yield. What other argument is there? Especially when you won't set it in stone for honest discussion?
Yeah, about the same amount that went into your post? You've kinda missed the point, haven't you?A massive
A massive amount of veg time went into the pics you posted. Millions of months for sure.
Seriously, you're a fuckwit.
The law of diminishing returns states you will eventually reach ZERO.
Then why did they trim all those lower branches? Why not leave them and increase their yield?
Do you even grow pot? Seriously.
Then why did they trim all those lower branches? Why not leave them and increase their yield?
Do you even grow pot? Seriously. Many people have done this over the years and you honestly think they do it to their detriment?
I was never arguing with you. I don't think there's a single thing you said that I haven't outright agreed with. You're not the one calling me names for thinking a plant with more veg time will yield more.
I'm sure that's true, and with diminishing returns and popcorn lower buds, but @Prawn Connery was arguing that more veg time won't result in higher yield after the canopy is full, not whether it's a good idea or not.