?We’re talking dog years?
Putting a seed in some good soil in California hasn't changed much in the last 40 years.Joe can't tell if you are joking because net doesn't do sarcasm, but growing knowledge has evolved for sure. Take any of the strains and grow them with the knowledge we have today and they wouldn't look like that....plus its high times.
What?So have you breed a marijuana plant to no longer need leafs? Is that what you are saying?
Oh yeah, valid point. Okay, my advice is to trim rather than defol, because all it does is set the plant back about a week while it refols.That's just pruning, not defol lol
Yeah those buds were crappy as hell, it's mostly leaf. That Guerrero Gold is the worst bud I've ever seen. Who bought that crud huh? I can see why they called it "grass" in those days. Thank goodness for Indica hybrids. Not pure Indica, because the smell was not good and the buds too leafy and woody, but hybrids. Not leafy like Guerrero, but leafy as in large bud leaves instead of little ones.Please.... tell me more about how little marijuana evolved from 1977 to 2017.
High times. 1977.
View attachment 4668010
I'm way over 20% and claiming success. I doubt I even leave 20%. Like I explained before taking so much off is a different gardening style that only benefits a really full canopy. Otherwise I'd have nice top buds and a garden full of larf.Not much evolution happens in 40 years though. Leafs are not gallbladders. The other thread that got silly I did learn one thing though, that plants are designed with redundancy because of natural damage and have approximately 20% more fan leafs then they need. I had never read that and I am curious how close to 20% all these people who claim success are.
It was this or bud rot, mildew and cotton balls. I'll take the hand grenades across the board.I'm way over 20% and claiming success. I doubt I even leave 20%. Like I explained before taking so much off is a different gardening style that only benefits a really full canopy. Otherwise I'd have nice top buds and a garden full of larf.
Didn't even read your post or knew you were in this thread. Have we spoke before? I have to admit, if you don't have a catchy name or avatar I most likely don't remember you. But no, nothing was directed at you.Assuming it is directed at me. I posted nothing that had anything to do with leaf removal.
I think @DaFreak is just looking to argue.
Have you tried lollitopping and getting rid of buds that would become larf before flipping? So many growers who don't get larf and don't defoliate.I'm way over 20% and claiming success. I doubt I even leave 20%. Like I explained before taking so much off is a different gardening style that only benefits a really full canopy. Otherwise I'd have nice top buds and a garden full of larf.
Well I am saying that plants have evolved over millennium to use photosynthesis and you point to a high times fold out page. So my question to you when you seem to be saying they have evolved so much in 40 years is have you breed a plant to not need photosynthesis?What?
I do lollipop but I grow my canopy super full on purpose. I tried to get some pictures to show what I mean. The video I screen shot was from last night which was day 13 of flower, so they still have another 8 days of filling in and stretching even more. With a garden this full it would be a mess if you didn't defoliate. The bottom18 inches or so of my plants have been stripped bare, and I'll take the rest of the branches that aren't gonna do anything on day 21 when I do the leaf strip.Have you tried lollitopping and getting rid of buds that would become larf before flipping? So many growers who don't get larf and don't defoliate.
In my experience the remaining leaves that are left at the bud sites take over fairly quick but the stems don't grow as long on those leaves so they aren't all out in the way shading everything. Within a few days plants are back to drinking the same amount of water. But as you can see from my pictures there are plenty of bud sites and the plants have grown enough by day 21 that slowing down growth for a couple days doesn't hurt anything and by allowing light to be able to get to middle and lower part of the canopy it makes for better overall buds and yield.Well I am saying that plants have evolved over millennium to use photosynthesis and you point to a high times fold out page. So my question to you when you seem to be saying they have evolved so much in 40 years is have you breed a plant to not need photosynthesis?
In my experience the remaining leaves that are left at the bud sites take over fairly quick but the stems don't grow as long on those leaves so they aren't all out in the way shading everything. Within a few days plants are back to drinking the same amount of water. But as you can see from my pictures there are plenty of bud sites and the plants have grown enough by day 21 that slowing down growth for a couple days doesn't hurt anything and by allowing light to be able to get to middle and lower part of the canopy it makes for better overall buds and yield.