Defoliation - When and how?

legallyflying

Well-Known Member
well I know I fucking hate popcorn bud. I always think..man those carbs could have been used to make real buds.

I think I'm just bud happy as I am nearing the end of week 7 and I have a room full of monsters :)
 

infinitescrog

Active Member
We've been down this road before.

unsubscribed....
OMG Thank you. Listen guy I'm not doubting your "botany experience" and "years of experience growing marijuana" but science changes over time, paradigms shift, and this is hardly a paradigm lol....so if you haven't had the experience where you pruned your plants and they all died, then I don't get what you can be advocating so strongly?

Thank god. Is that all it takes?
Amen.
 

cerberus

Well-Known Member
i think its funny how much peple argue about this shit.. people will dump so much money into light and venting and then co2 and then when its all cranking into gear they will cut off the things that utilize all this equipment. leaves hold most of a plants stomha's, how they breath in the co2, the leaves transpire how they move moisture, leaves store energy...

i mean cut whats dieing or shit, but deffoilation?

p.s. knocking ben? you ever read the marijuana bible by jorge? (most growers use it as a bible) ben has creds in that book... just sayin..
 

dlively11

Well-Known Member
i think its funny how much peple argue about this shit.. people will dump so much money into light and venting and then co2 and then when its all cranking into gear they will cut off the things that utilize all this equipment. leaves hold most of a plants stomha's, how they breath in the co2, the leaves transpire how they move moisture, leaves store energy...

i mean cut whats dieing or shit, but deffoilation?

p.s. knocking ben? you ever read the marijuana bible by jorge? (most growers use it as a bible) ben has creds in that book... just sayin..
In a perfect world you would be correct but with a crowded indoor grow the benifits outweigh the negatives. More light and more air circulating. Stick 4 plants or heck even 2 plants in a SQ foot and watch what happens in the first few weeks of bloom. Will answer all your questions.
 

cerberus

Well-Known Member
aggreed, but we control how many plants there are per sq foot right? and even with that, trim whole branches early rather than "defoil" leaves. but i get what your saying and when the game starts really going, SOG is a good example, things significantly get trickier and the whole balancing act gets that much sharper.

but on a whole, we are talking about cutting off the things we are spending so much time and money to get everything perfect for, just to defoil?..

just my .02
 

Brick Top

New Member
but science changes over time
I am NOT going to get into the what is best part but I do have a question. In regards to this subject what actual real true science has changed? What horticulturalists with PhDs researching where on what plants have discovered that was previously known to be a fact turned out to be incorrect and what actual real true scientific fact or facts in regards to this subject have actually changed?

Or is it that just enough Beavis and Buttheads growing in basements and closets and store rooms and spare rooms and grow tents and attics and garages have made enough totally nonscientific completely unproven unsubstantiated claims that they have taken on an air of believability so some people are foolish enough to believe that actual scientifically proven facts have changed?

It would be a very injudicious thing for anyone to confuse what we do for being equal to actual scientific research and enough to alter facts that were found through actual scientific research and tested and retested and retested until they became unquestionable incontrovertible facts that the Beavis and Buttheads just refuse to accept.
 

legallyflying

Well-Known Member
I'm not knocking you brick top as I think your a guy that knows what the hell he is doing. It's not that scientific understanding has changed, it's just that in modern times there is a vastly more comprehensive understaning of how many things operate. Shit, when I was in grade school that weren't even sure how exactly photosynthesis worked. Or at least a movie we watched in school didn't know

Then you tack on DNA research, the effects of different hormones and the use of different grow room technologies, and the techniques to get the best results just evolve over time

I highly doubt anyone growing in the 70's and 80's knew what gibberellins were and they sure as hell were not awash in the nutrient and booster solutions modern growers are. I think people (including myself) grow tired of uncle ben as he posts like a broken record, an arrogant broken record with no pictures to prove this marvelous botanical wisdom that takes home depot soil, table scraps, and bag seed and produces the most bountiful and powerful marijuana known to man.
 

Wolverine97

Well-Known Member
I'm not knocking you brick top as I think your a guy that knows what the hell he is doing. It's not that scientific understanding has changed, it's just that in modern times there is a vastly more comprehensive understaning of how many things operate. Shit, when I was in grade school that weren't even sure how exactly photosynthesis worked. Or at least a movie we watched in school didn't know

Then you tack on DNA research, the effects of different hormones and the use of different grow room technologies, and the techniques to get the best results just evolve over time

I highly doubt anyone growing in the 70's and 80's knew what gibberellins were and they sure as hell were not awash in the nutrient and booster solutions modern growers are. I think people (including myself) grow tired of uncle ben as he posts like a broken record, an arrogant broken record with no pictures to prove this marvelous botanical wisdom that takes home depot soil, table scraps, and bag seed and produces the most bountiful and powerful marijuana known to man.
I'm in my 30's, and I remember talking about gibberilins in biology. My teacher didn't want to give me any more info once she saw my eyes light up when she told us how much of an increase in growth rate you could achieve using this "magic hormone". The good old days.
 

Brick Top

New Member
I'm not knocking you brick top as I think your a guy that knows what the hell he is doing. It's not that scientific understanding has changed, it's just that in modern times there is a vastly more comprehensive understaning of how many things operate. Shit, when I was in grade school that weren't even sure how exactly photosynthesis worked. Or at least a movie we watched in school didn't know

Then you tack on DNA research, the effects of different hormones and the use of different grow room technologies, and the techniques to get the best results just evolve over time

I highly doubt anyone growing in the 70's and 80's knew what gibberellins were and they sure as hell were not awash in the nutrient and booster solutions modern growers are. I think people (including myself) grow tired of uncle ben as he posts like a broken record, an arrogant broken record with no pictures to prove this marvelous botanical wisdom that takes home depot soil, table scraps, and bag seed and produces the most bountiful and powerful marijuana known to man.

The inference was that science has changed, that things once considered to be facts about plants have since been proven to be incorrect and now new correct facts have replaced the old incorrect beliefs.

I only ask when that happened and what researchers with what hortocultural degrees did it and where the research was performed.

When someone can provide an accurate answer to that question then I will have to accept what some people claim. But as long as all anyone can provide is what they believe they observe in their basement or store room or closet or grow tent or attic or garage, I am sorry but I will have to cling to what has been for many, many years and remains scientifically proven facts.


Additional:

I highly doubt anyone growing in the 70's and 80's knew what gibberellins were
Not that it really matters or pertains to the subject but since you mentioned it, there were initial discoveries and isolation of gibberellins in the 1930s but there was difficulty in isolating pure material, and confusing identifications. Later they were isolated and fully understood in the 1950s in the United States.

Any horticulture student or truly avid grower of any sort of plants would have known of them ever since. An average grower today still may be unaware of them but then people like my brother in law who grew in the 70's while earning his degree in horticulture at NC State would have been fully aware of them since they were known of for about two decades by then.

It all comes down to level of actual education in plants, in horticulture, versus what people believe they learn or discover through trial and error, observation and testing with their human senses.

For some totally inexplicable reason or reasons many modern day growers place far more faith in what those who believe they learn or discover more through trial and error, observation and testing with their human senses say than what true scientific research findings have proven.
 

dlively11

Well-Known Member
aggreed, but we control how many plants there are per sq foot right? and even with that, trim whole branches early rather than "defoil" leaves. but i get what your saying and when the game starts really going, SOG is a good example, things significantly get trickier and the whole balancing act gets that much sharper.

but on a whole, we are talking about cutting off the things we are spending so much time and money to get everything perfect for, just to defoil?..

just my .02
I agree with you. Most of the time it wont be needed. It is only needed when you are pushing your grow to the absolute max. I went from 4 per sq foot to two to make life easier. My yields are consistantly a good bit lower but I trim plants a lot less and have half as many plants to deal with. If you want to start getting over gram per watt on a typical table you dont have much choice. I am happy with 1.2-1.3 but 1.9 was amazing for no CO2. If I had a single table I'd still do 4 per foot. No veg time on the table its always in bloom which means insane numbers anually off a single table are possible. Its all a matter of what your goals are. If you are happy with your results dont bother changing a thing. If you feel you can do better and see others attaining better results , it will pay off in spades to read and listen to those that are actually accomplishing this, not those that are stuck in their ways with lesser results. Was simple to me, of course I am a logical practical person. I saw what my grow was doing and started reading about people doing much more. Either they were flat out lying for god knows what reason or they were doing something scientifically supperior t achieve these results. It intrigued me so I started mirroring their grows and voila, I started getting those same results myself ! No mystery no magic no bending of scientific botanical facts required. Simply using what you have to your best ability. Saved me literally years of trial and error and I still would have never achieved these results on my own.
 

dlively11

Well-Known Member
I am NOT going to get into the what is best part but I do have a question. In regards to this subject what actual real true science has changed? What horticulturalists with PhDs researching where on what plants have discovered that was previously known to be a fact turned out to be incorrect and what actual real true scientific fact or facts in regards to this subject have actually changed?

Or is it that just enough Beavis and Buttheads growing in basements and closets and store rooms and spare rooms and grow tents and attics and garages have made enough totally nonscientific completely unproven unsubstantiated claims that they have taken on an air of believability so some people are foolish enough to believe that actual scientifically proven facts have changed?

It would be a very injudicious thing for anyone to confuse what we do for being equal to actual scientific research and enough to alter facts that were found through actual scientific research and tested and retested and retested until they became unquestionable incontrovertible facts that the Beavis and Buttheads just refuse to accept.
I'll second that you know what you are doing but you and a few others always seem to think there is only one way to grow more or less. Just like cars and people there is always someone faster and tougher out there no matter who you are. You seem so blinded by science that you cant see how it is needed with certain grows to maximize yield, if you are pushing hard. SCROG and Lollipping to name a few. 2-4 plants per SQ foot will achieve the best yields on a given space then growing lower numbers but only IF you remove leaves to let air and light in. Want 1/2 gram per watt fine stick 4 per foot and dont remove anything and see a lesser yield then going with one plant per foot. Stick 2 plants and no removal and see better results, maybe .7 grams per watt or even 1 if it is going perfectly. Want over 1 per watt and especially 1.5+ per watt with or without CO2 and you will have to be vertical or doing 2-4 per foot and removing leaves. 1.9 with no CO2 is no joke and I have yet to see many achieve this even with CO2 without being vertical. Was only possible by going with 4 per foot and maor leaf removal. The benifits outweigh the negatives. Same sized plants grown with no leaf removal will for a fact yield better by them selves WITHOUT removing leaves no one is arguing this. The Botanical scientific facts have not changed. It is only when you crowd the plants together that it becomes benificial and neccesary for the highest yields for your given space. Scientific botanical facts are for a FACT NOT taking this into account nor the fact we are all groing under a stationary light source.

FYI the only Beavis and Buttheads are guys like you and UB then are so old and stubborn they refuse to look at other ways to achieve better results for a given space. Happy with 2 lbs a light dont bother listening, its doable without removing a thing. Want 3+ ? Then you will need to be vertical or removing all those precious leaves. I have argued before that I have done MANY MANY scientific studies with this style of growing. Literally thousands of plants in a controlled enviroment with clones and everything else being equal. Results very very clear and very consistant. Did scientific facts change magically, no I just manged to be as efficient as possible and attained much better results using the same science you hold so dear. You two can try and dismiss it all you want but the fact is you guys are still stuck at 2 lbs per light and will always remain there. Why do you think verticals yield so much more ? Better light distribution. Same with Scrog and Lollipop. Its all about light efficeincy was you have every other factor down pat. I copied others grow styles on several forums. The one thing they all had in comon was over 1.5 grams per watt, full SOG tables and defoilation, end of story.
 

Brick Top

New Member
I'll second that you know what you are doing but you and a few others always seem to think there is only one way to grow more or less. You seem so blinded by science that you cant see how it is needed with certain grows to maximize yield, if you are pushing hard. SCROG and Lollipping to name a few. 2-4 plants per SQ foot will achieve the best yields on a given space then growing lower numbers but only IF you remove leaves to let air and light in. Want 1/2 gram per watt fine stick 4 per foot and dont remove anything and see a lesser yield then going with one plant per foot. Stick 2 plants and no removal and see better results, maybe .7 grams per watt or even 1 if it is going perfectly. Want over 1 per watt and especially 1.5+ per watt with or without CO2 and you will have to be vertical or doing 2-4 per foot and removing leaves. 1.9 with no CO2 is no joke and I have yet to see many achieve this even with CO2 without being vertical. Was only possible by going with 4 per foot and maor leaf removal. The benifits outweigh the negatives. Same sized plants grown with no leaf removal will for a fact yield better by them selves WITHOUT removing leaves no one is arguing this. The Botanical scientific facts have not changed. It is only when you crowd the plants together that it becomes benificial and neccesary for the highest yields for your given space. Scientific botanical facts are for a FACT NOT taking this into account nor the fact we are all groing under a stationary light source.
I am not going to get into the facts versus the myths part of it because I have been down that road far too many times already and know that the side of ignorance always argues until it believes it overcomes facts.

But you were inaccurate in some of how you portrayed me. You made it appear as if I have always and only said there is only one way to grow when that it inaccurate. Many times I have advised people to use some method of growing, some technique, because it was best for their situation. But situational needs to not make for the very best, they only make the best that can be made of a certain situation.

FYI the only Beavis and Buttheads are guys like you and UB then are so old and stubborn they refuse to look at other ways to achieve better results for a given space. Happy with 2 lbs a light dont bother listening, its doable without removing a thing. Want 3+ ? Then you will need to be vertical or removing all those precious leaves. I have argued before that I have done MANY MANY scientific studies with this style of growing. Literally thousands of plants in a controlled enviroment with clones and everything else being equal. Results very very clear and very consistant. Did scientific facts change magically, no I just manged to be as efficient as possible and attained much better results using the same science you hold so dear. You two can try and dismiss it all you want but the fact is you guys are still stuck at 2 lbs per light and will always remain there. Why do you think verticals yield so much more ? Better light distribution. Same with Scrog and Lollipop. Its all about light efficeincy was you have every other factor down pat. I copied others grow styles on several forums. The one thing they all had in comon was over 1.5 grams per watt, full SOG tables and defoilation, end of story.
The Beavis and Buttheads are the growers with no true education in plants, who never took a single botanical/horticultural course, who never took the time or put out the effort to research it on their own and by doing so learning true proven facts and who instead reject every fact they are told in favor of beliefs and opinions and myths and urban legends and misconceptions and half-truths and inaccuracies and old hippie folklore.

As I said, it all comes down to level of actual education in plants, in horticulture, versus what people believe they learn or discover through trial and error, observation and testing with their human senses. There is no comparing the two. The facts learned through education are facts that were proven and tested and proven and retested and again proven over and over again until they were irrefutable and each time it was done it was in highly controlled environments. No basement or closet or store room or grow tent or spare room or garage or attic growing will ever be capable of even just beginning to compare when it comes to a controlled environment or equal accurate comparisons made or in its ability to actually discover and understand and prove what scientific research can and has proven.

Only a true Beavis or Butthead could ever believe otherwise.
 

Canon

Well-Known Member
I am not going to get into the facts versus the myths part of it because I have been down that road far too many times already and know that the side of ignorance always argues until it believes it overcomes facts.

But you were inaccurate in some of how you portrayed me. You made it appear as if I have always and only said there is only one way to grow when that it inaccurate. Many times I have advised people to use some method of growing, some technique, because it was best for their situation. But situational needs to not make for the very best, they only make the best that can be made of a certain situation.



The Beavis and Buttheads are the growers with no true education in plants, who never took a single botanical/horticultural course, who never took the time or put out the effort to research it on their own and by doing so learning true proven facts and who instead reject every fact they are told in favor of beliefs and opinions and myths and urban legends and misconceptions and half-truths and inaccuracies and old hippie folklore.

As I said, it all comes down to level of actual education in plants, in horticulture, versus what people believe they learn or discover through trial and error, observation and testing with their human senses. There is no comparing the two. The facts learned through education are facts that were proven and tested and proven and retested and again proven over and over again until they were irrefutable and each time it was done it was in highly controlled environments. No basement or closet or store room or grow tent or spare room or garage or attic growing will ever be capable of even just beginning to compare when it comes to a controlled environment or equal accurate comparisons made or in its ability to actually discover and understand and prove what scientific research can and has proven.

Only a true Beavis or Butthead could ever believe otherwise.
:roll: Do you realize how silly this makes you sound?
First you start calling names to anyone that doesn't think like you,, and then you get that hollier than thou thing going.
Any idea how often science reputes their own findings? How often several scientist think differently on the same subject matter?
Things like fire were used for centuries by the cause & effect types looooong before science got a grip on why and what really happens.
Cause & effect again was in the forefront when someone considered that plants may like music.
Cause & effect got the Wright Bros. off the ground by trying foolish experiments before science caught on and figured out why.
I'll bet Auto Flowers and Feminized were brought to be the same way too. Perhaps the folks had all that book knowledge to call on,, perhaps not. But either way they had to try it before it was proven to work. Unfortunately, neither are 100% fail safe at this time. But they willbe because people will experiment on their own and try to find a more stable solution through cause & effect.
People thinking outside the box and not being affraid to try something new has gotten us everything! It's put man on the moon, sea farming, gasoline engines, dishwashing machines, indoor plumbing, central air conditioning, and home computers just to mention a very, very few.

Now, I need to ask, Why do you get your panties in a bunch when someone says try it and learn from it? Are you that affraid that someone may discover that something works well for them with their own method or style? (and contradictory to your beliefs)

I'm simply not going to follow your lead simply because you've read something and I've actually tried it and find that sometimes it can be a usefull tool in my bag of tricks for my growing.

I respect your opinion on knowledge through schooling & research is good. A good foundation that is. But to stagnate people into mechanical growing is not very helpful to people that may have conditions that warrent some experimentations.

But I do not repect the way your postings seem to always include ridicule,, name calling,, and stagnation of imagination / experimentation.

This has been a mostly friendly exchange of ideas up to this point on the most part. However, again your just pouring gasoline on a fire and trying to start crap with your post.
Is there any way you can find a way to communicate without being abrasive? When the name calling begins, I'm out of here,,,, see ya! Exchanging ideas and thoughts really don't inclide ridicule in a more helpful setting / conversation.

As mentioned,
I have no need to :wall:.

Have a nice day.

PS; Something to think about, Viagra. Do you know this came about by Scientist trying to find medicine for heart disease? I can only imagine how they found out it would give the guys hours long woodies. (bet it was cause & effect trials. :bigjoint:)
 

Wolverine97

Well-Known Member
:roll: Do you realize how silly this makes you sound?
First you start calling names to anyone that doesn't think like you,, and then you get that hollier than thou thing going.
Any idea how often science reputes their own findings? How often several scientist think differently on the same subject matter?
Things like fire were used for centuries by the cause & effect types looooong before science got a grip on why and what really happens.
Cause & effect again was in the forefront when someone considered that plants may like music.
Cause & effect got the Wright Bros. off the ground by trying foolish experiments before science caught on and figured out why.
I'll bet Auto Flowers and Feminized were brought to be the same way too. Perhaps the folks had all that book knowledge to call on,, perhaps not. But either way they had to try it before it was proven to work. Unfortunately, neither are 100% fail save at this time. But they willbe because people will experiment on their own and try to find a more stable solution through cause & effect.
People thinking outside the box and not being affraid to try something new has gotten us everything! It's put man on the moon, sea farming, gasoline engines, dishwashing machines, indoor plumbing, central air conditioning, and home computers just to mention a very, very few.

Now, I need to ask, Why do you get your panties in a bunch when someone says try it and learn from it? Are you that affraid that someone may discover that something works well for them with their own method or style? (and contradictory to your beliefs)

I'm simply not going to follow your lead simply because you've read something and I've actually tried it and find that sometimes it can be a usefull tool in my bag of tricks for my growing.

I respect your opinion on knowledge through schooling & research is good. A good foundation that is. But to stagnate people into mechanical growing is not very helpful to people that may have conditions that warrent some experimentations.

But I do not repect the way your postings seem to always include ridicule,, name calling,, and stagnation of imagination / experimentation.

This has been a mostly friendly exchange of ideas up to this point on the most part. However, again your just pouring gasoline on a fire and trying to start crap with your post.
Is there any way you can find a way to communicate without being abrasive? When the name calling begins, I'm out of here,,,, see ya! Exchanging ideas and thoughts really don't inclide ridicule in a more helpful setting / conversation.

As mentioned,
I have no need to :wall:.

Have a nice day.

PS; Something to think about, Viagra. Do you know this came about by Scientist trying to find medicine for heart disease? I can only imagine how they found out it would give the guys hours long woodies. (bet it was cause & effect trials:bigjoint:)
Well, the horticultural "education" debate can go both ways, though I generally agree with you. It wasn't all that long ago that people were taught that flies came from meat, and the earth was flat, there is a fountain of youth...
 

Canon

Well-Known Member
WARNING! Do not defoliate unless you desire these dreaded results. Thank god this guy had more seeds.

(Not mine,, just stole it for show & tell.)

Day 16 before defoliation


Day 16 after


Day 20


Day 24 before 2nd defoliation


Day 24 after


Day 28


Day 32


Day 36


Day 40


Day 45



Whats left to go 1 bg and 2 chemd



If that's not enough,, maybe this will scare you?




Yup, removing leaves have negative effects. :roll:

I've led the horse to water....

Done.
 
Top