Defoliation - When and how?

[legallyflying]

I think we have sufficiently beat the defoliation debate to death. Kind of saw that one coming. Consensus? do whatever you want, they are your plants. I guess there is a time and place for everything. Maybe the message is that the more your grow varies from "natural" conditions.. i.e one plant per 8 square feet outdoors, the more you may benefit from these techniques that are not necessarily covered in the literature.

But anyways, since a few are flexing their botanical knowledge muscles, I do have a question that requires some knowledge to answer. It gets back to this fundamental practice that I see LOTS of people employing and rationalize under botanical principals that don't make a whole lot of sense.

What I am referring to is the dumping of shit loads of sugar in their watering solutions. Some have this notion that if we "give them sugars" then they won't have to make them and they will spend all their energy forming flowers. Others claim the feeding of fungus and other biologicals in the rhizosphere.

Here is what I do know:
1. Sugar is produced in the leaves and transported (primarily) to the roots via phloem. 2. The primary mechanism is both differences in turgor pressure and concentration gradients between sources (leaves) and sinks (roots). If you are lost already then read here: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar99/sugar0399.htm or here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071221163216.htm
(please note that these processes have just been proven in the last ten years)
3. Plants have a VERY limited ability to absorb sugars in their roots due to the presence of the casparian strip.

For this reason, I typically foliar feed sugars as leaves don't have a casparian strip.

Ok, so here is the question (fucking finally): Does the presence of high amounts of sugar in the rhizosphere actually serve to DECREASE uptake and dispersal to flowers?

My thinking is that because plants transport sugars from the roots via the xylem through the mechanism of transpiration (which is driven by osmosis and not active transport (like sugars into the ). Wouldn't the increased salinity of the rhizosphere from adding shit fuck loads of sugars actually serve to hinder uptake and transpiration due to a lower concentration gradient or is it not that sensitive. I mean, I haven't seen plants wilt from sugar introduction but I run the plants hot and dry during flower and need to maximize the ability for transpiration (and thus nutrient and sugar transport to flowers).

I'm basically trying to decide if I should bother adding any sugar at all in the rez. yeah, feeding biologicals is always nice but the roots exude sugars for them to eat (that's how the exist in nature as, in least in my area, it doesn't rain sugar water).

 

[Wolverine97]

I'm very curious to hear what people have to say about this also. Good question legally...
I'd suspect that it doesn't hinder the uptake, but that's beyond my knowledge.

 

[Canon]

A bit off topic,, but..
I grow in soil. All I know is, sugar sure makes for happy bugs and such.

 

[legallyflying]

A bit off topic,, but..
I grow in soil. All I know is, sugar sure makes for happy bugs and such.

Fair enough, but I do remember something about mycorhizal associations can get fuckered up when there are high levels of certain chemicals and sugars in the grow medium. Anyways, why taking 5 minutes to google around and try to find this reference, I did come across this paper on the effects of stress on plant biomass.. which specifically looked at DEFOLIATION RESPONSES on BIOMASS.
http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/907/

to wit:

Biomass, soluble root carbohydrates and mycorrhizal colonization progressively decreased with increasing ozone stress. Shading had a negative effect on vesicles and coils at certain sampling periods. While defoliation negatively affected biomass and mycorrhizal colonization at the beginning of this study, towards the end, it increased biomass and mycorrhizal colonization and appeared to make those defoliated seedlings more tolerant to ozone. This experiment also showed how sensitive mycorrhizal fungi are to plant stress. In a second experiment, low/high CO 2 (350/650 ppm) coupled with low/high O 3 (10/200 ppb) was examined for biomass, total soluble carbohydrates and mycorrhizal fungi of one month-old sugar maple seedlings for 61 days. By day 61, high CO 2 seedlings had the highest biomass, followed by control, high CO 2 - high O 3 and high O 3 though none of these results were significant. The same trends could be seen for the individual plant parts (second leaves, stems and roots) yet only high ozone had a significant effect on second leaves. For the carbohydrate analysis, high O 3 decreased soluble carbohydrate concentrations for the first leaves and stems though these results were not significant.


So basically for those that were saying " there hasn't been any significant change in botanical principals or show me where it says that defoliating would not negatively affect a plant.... well, there it is.

 

[mindphuk]

Cutting off fan leaves to grow bigger buds is like cutting of your foot to run faster.

Cutting off fan leaves is like losing fat to help you run faster. No one disputes that fan leaves collect and store energy. Fat also is an energy store. Do you doubt you can run faster if you go from 30% of your weight in body fat to 8%?

I'm not saying that removing fan leaves is right or wrong, I'm not a botanist. But misrepresenting an opponent's POV by an extremely flawed strawman analogy does nothing to move the discussion forward.

 

[legallyflying]

I am REALLY beginning to question the "common sense" approach that cutting of leaves is bad becasue obviously plants use their leaves for energy production.

It seems that many monoecious plants can actually stimulate flower and seed production in response to defoliation...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20519239
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2389881

obviously plant response varies by species but there are definitely some trends that make sense in an evolutionary pressure sense.

 

[Brick Top]

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?

Do you realize how silly that made you sound?


The facts I, and Uncle Ben, have referred to have stood the test of time, they have been tested and re-tested and re-retested until they have become incontrovertible facts among anyone with an education that includes horticulture. Anyone who lacks education in some subject or field can doubt proven facts and claim virtually anything they wish to and believe they are correct ... but only because they lack the education to know they are in fact incorrect.

Yes once scientific facts have later been discovered to be incorrect but they were cases of where there had not been enough technological advancement made to date to be able to discover the smaller particle than was believed to exist and only later when technology advanced new discoveries were made and tested and confirmed.

This subject is not like that. It does not require some Star Trek advancement of technology and the growing methods people use are anything but technological advancements and their physical senses are hardly extremely advanced high technology equipment to use to evaluate results. Their methods are anything but sound and what they do is not performed in a true controlled environment. It is not as if they begin with a dozen different strains and grow every plant of every strain from clones taken from the same mother plant of each strain and then grow one test group of each strain in the way they believe to be best and grow the rest as they would grow in nature. They do not perfectly meter out the exact same amounts of water and nutrients given to their non-existent various test groups. They do not perform numerous examinations and tests and take measurements on each test group daily, or several times a day, and chart them. After they harvest they do not have a number of various strains grown in differing ways to then test to see if the results they believe they found in the group using their preferred method were actually what they believe them to be or an anomaly. They do not then pick a dozen different strains and repeat the entire process and after that do it again and again until the an unquestionable final finding is found over years of actual research performed under exacting controlled conditions using a very wide variety of strains .... while at the same time other research locations have been performing the same research and in over the years the very same thing is repeated by others and all the research findings are compared and their processes compared to see if they equate to valid and comparable findings to the others and the findings are combined and evaluated and eventually the facts becomes so obvious that even a blindfolded Stevie Wonder in a pitch black mine shaft could clearly see them.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between actual true scientific research and what someone does in their basement or closet or grow tent or store room or spare room or attic or garage and that is what makes the findings of one fact and the other nothing more than belief.

I have never taken horticultural classes in college myself. I do though have four family members with degrees in horticulture and I have read a number of their text books used while they were earning their degrees at NC State University. I have also read all or parts of a good number of books on horticulture. Together with my family members I am an owner of a nursery, trees and bushes, not plants or runny nose kids, and while mainly an investor and not working there often I have over the years put in some time and I have gone with them and attended a handful of continuing education short courses. I have discussed this very topic with them a handful of times, since it keep coming back like a case of herpes, and each time they have said the same basic thing. If someone actually believes the world is flat you will never convince them that it is not flat and until they take a cruise around the world and never fall off the edge of the world while circling it they will refuse to believe anything other than what they want to believe.

In short, until they learn the actual true facts they will only believe what they want to believe, what they like to believe and what they are most comfortably believing.

As for what you called my "name calling," saying the Beavis and Buttheads here, well that is a way for me to find humor in saying, those uneducated in such things. Would you feel any less insulted and think more highly of me if I instead simply called those uneducated in these things, uneducated? I will make the change if it will make you happier but frankly after reading the seeming-less never ending string of inane things that many on sites like this write, and how they write it, I almost have to feel calling them Beavis and Butthead is being overgenerous and complimentary.

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.

I read that shortly after the product was released, but that sort of thing happens. I have tachycardia and the medication I take daily is a blood pressure medication that after being released was only then found to not only lower blood pressure but also regulate the heart beat. But neither of those are a case of long standing scientific fact being proven wrong. They are examples of unexpected unintentional positive affects that also went with what was being created, just as with some medications there are unexpected unintentional negative side affects that go along with what was being created.

If you were attempting to use Viagra as an example of long standing scientific facts being proven to be incorrect what you did was use a red herring argument and that never scores you points when attempting to prove something you believe too be correct. The only thing is proves is that you are low on or out of ammunition.

As I have said before, since it was said that science changes all I ask is for just one single person to tell me when the facts Uncle Ben and I have referred to were scientifically proven to be incorrect, when it happened, what scientific researchers with what various degrees in horticulture were involved and where did the research take place? It is simple to say that facts have been proven to be incorrect in the past and it can and will happen again. Anyone can say that, and they would be correct in saying that. But again that is a red herring argument since it in no way directly pertains to this topic.

Someone, anyone, step up to the plate and answer the question of when the longstanding facts Uncle Ben and I have referred to were scientifically proven to be incorrect, when it happened, what scientific researchers with what various degrees in horticulture were involved and where did the research take place and if what they provide checks out, if it is valid and not just some made up claim I will totally accept it and not question it and in the future I will say the very same thing as the new findings proved.

Until someone can do that and does do that and proves to the entire growing world that the longstanding facts have been proven to be incorrect all anyone on the side of the discussion that believes in defoliation can do, and actually does, is voice their personal opinion, express their preferred chosen belief, only claim that what they want to believe is in fact while not being capable of factually proving their position.

Regardless of if you or anyone else likes it or not or accepts it or not, that's how the mop flops, that's the way it is and nothing will alter that until actual new scientific proof can be provided proving longstanding facts to be incorrect.

 

[legallyflying]

Yo brick top
Can you tell me again what these horticultural facts that you are referring to? You keep referencing them time and time again and just kept hoping that you would summarize at some point and spit out what these so called horticultural facts were but alas you did not. I read through your older posts and it seems that you ELUDE to the notion that its not a good idea but I couldn't find a place where you came out and said it was so.

Also, so I guess the scientific journal articles that I posted wherein the scientific method was used to test a hypothesis...and low and behold, they found an increase in seed and fruit production following defoliation. I thought that would be interesting or at least spark some sort of debate? Traditional commercial horticulture has little in common with what most of us are doing. Where I would TOTALLY expect UB to discount anything that went against his obviously firmly cemented beliefs, I thought that you would have found the info interesting as it makes allot of fucking sense to me. So I do have a college education in botany (minor anyway) and yet I still have doubts about how damaging defoliating (latter in flower anyway) can be. I'm not trying to stir the shit, really. But the point I am trying to make is that you have your beliefs because they have "stoood the test of time" or have been "proven again and again". Yet it seems this test and proof are simply what you have experienced. I'm sure people in the 18th century experienced the world as flat and made a mockery of those that said, hey wait a minute, maybe it is round?

Again, I don't think this is a matter of simple botanical principles. "leaved make energy, remove them no more energy". That is a dramatic oversimplification of what goes on. I'll tell you what, run a roto-tiller through a patch of blackberry bushes, completely cutting their roots up. "You fuck up a plants roots and they will die" well low and behold, those blackberry roots will release a shit load of enymes and hormones from the damage and when you come back a week later, there will be three times as many BB as there once was..

 

[Wolverine97]

Yo brick top
Can you tell me again what these horticultural facts that you are referring to? You keep referencing them time and time again and just kept hoping that you would summarize at some point and spit out what these so called horticultural facts were but alas you did not. I read through your older posts and it seems that you ELUDE to the notion that its not a good idea but I couldn't find a place where you came out and said it was so.

Also, so I guess the scientific journal articles that I posted wherein the scientific method was used to test a hypothesis...and low and behold, they found an increase in seed and fruit production following defoliation. I thought that would be interesting or at least spark some sort of debate? Traditional commercial horticulture has little in common with what most of us are doing. Where I would TOTALLY expect UB to discount anything that went against his obviously firmly cemented beliefs, I thought that you would have found the info interesting as it makes allot of fucking sense to me. So I do have a college education in botany (minor anyway) and yet I still have doubts about how damaging defoliating (latter in flower anyway) can be. I'm not trying to stir the shit, really. But the point I am trying to make is that you have your beliefs because they have "stoood the test of time" or have been "proven again and again". Yet it seems this test and proof are simply what you have experienced. I'm sure people in the 18th century experienced the world as flat and made a mockery of those that said, hey wait a minute, maybe it is round?

Again, I don't think this is a matter of simple botanical principles. "leaved make energy, remove them no more energy". That is a dramatic oversimplification of what goes on. I'll tell you what, run a roto-tiller through a patch of blackberry bushes, completely cutting their roots up. "You fuck up a plants roots and they will die" well low and behold, those blackberry roots will release a shit load of enymes and hormones from the damage and when you come back a week later, there will be three times as many BB as there once was..

If you've ever read Mel Thomas' "Cannabis Cultivation" there is a section where he talks about continued and severe defoliation inducing marijuana to turn polyploid. I've never tried it, I've always stuck to the "tuck, don't pluck" rule but maybe it warrants further research in cannabis.

The links you included only studied monoecious plants, but cannabis is diocoiecious(sp?). I don't know if that factors in much, maybe a botany major or other can weigh in here?

 

[Brick Top]

obviously plant response varies by species but there are definitely some trends that make sense in an evolutionary pressure sense.

Earlier I missed where you mentioned the evolutionary process and amazingly enough just a few moments ago while filling my coffee mug something about this discussion struck me, something about the process of evolution. It is of course nothing scientific and I would not even go so far as to call it a new-found belief of mine. Instead I would only call it something for all the defoliators of the world to consider.

Unless there are more arguments for defoliation than I am aware of it appears that the reasons given to remove leaves are so the 'energy' they would otherwise be using would be transferred or redirected to bud growth and the other that they block light from striking buds and increased light on buds causes increased bud growth. For the moment we will ignore that both have been scientifically proven to be fallacies, but consider the following.

The singular purpose for a female plant to exist is to make seeds to perpetuate the species. (Also a male plant too but the male is not germane to this discussion since we strive for sensi and not seeds so they can be left out) That is the one and only job it has, the one and only reason for it to exist. As we all know seeds are produced in the tiny individual female flowers called calyx that grow in clusters and form the 'buds' that most people consider to be one actual female flower rather than a collection of massive numbers of tiny individual flowers that grow in clusters.

If defoliation actually increases bud growth and size, either through the redirection/transfer of available 'plant energy' and or increased amounts of light directly striking the buds, which if accurate would mean more tiny individual female flowers that each would attempt to produce a single seed would be created, if someone believes in the evolutionary process they would have to believe that over the thousands and thousands and thousands or more years that cannabis plants have evolved that the evolutionary process would have discovered it and plants in the wild, in nature, would defoliate themselves to create more tiny individual female flowers, calyx, so more seeds would be produced and therefore not only increase the odds of the species surviving but cause it to better thrive and to increase it's numbers and expand it's range/area/region of growth.

Oddly though you do not see that happening in nature, in the wild, do you?

Do all you defoliators actually believe that you have out thought thousands and thousands and thousands or more years of evolution and in your basements and closets and grow tents and store rooms and spare rooms and garages and attics have found a way to advance evolution?

For those who do not believe in evolution and instead believe everything was created by God, a God, some Gods or some incredibly intelligent and unimaginably powerful being or life form do all you defoliators actually believe that by God, a God, some Gods or some incredibly intelligent and unimaginably powerful being or life form could create everything else but was not intelligent enough to pick up on the defoliation thing and missed it and that all of you are more intelligent than by God, a God, some Gods or some incredibly intelligent and unimaginably powerful being or life form is or was?

I am a bit surprised that I had not thought to mention the above before because I have said the same thing about pot size and roots. Many, or possibly most, growers grow in pots of insufficient size. The roots of their plants are tightly cramped and often times the root-bound condition results. Some claim that small pots are large enough and some claim them to be better. But if that were the case over the thousands and thousands and thousands or more years of evolution wouldn't one have to believe that evolution would have hit on that being better and that plants growing in nature, in the wild, would on their own grow very tightly packed root-balls or if by God, a God, some Gods or some incredibly intelligent and unimaginably powerful being or life form was behind all creation that it or they would have been intelligent enough to know that tightly packed root-balls would make plants grow better so we would see plants growing that way in nature, in the wild?

Strangely enough we do not see that occurring in nature, in the wild, either, do we?

Those things are just a couple things to ponder on a while, to think about, to consider.

Of course the red herring argument of saying, but look how modern breeding techniques have resulted in new and better healthier higher producing food crops and ornamental plants and flowers and cannabis strains and the advancements in plant nutrition needs being discovered. But we are not talking about altering genetics to create new strains or nutritional needs being met, we are only talking about how plants grow best so there would be no reason or need to reply with such a red herring response like that.

 

[Brick Top]

Yo brick top
Can you tell me again what these horticultural facts that you are referring to?

In the past numerous times I have posted very long proven findings, only to normally be ridiculed for either C&Ping and or posting such long messages, that there is no reason or need for me to do it again. Each time the defoliators rejected the facts and made the same claims they are making in this thread.

I have, as has Uncle Ben, presented scientifically proven facts more than enough times. It is now time for the defoliators to present their scientifically proven facts.

As many times as I have posted actual proven facts in the past and the defoliators have rejected it, and then in another thread, just like you, asked for them again, if I were the tiger and the defoliators were Little Black Sambo I would have been turned into butter long ago. It is always the same around and around and around the bush exchange, which is why Uncle Ben washed his hands of it and I have in the past and am about ready to do the same thing again.

Facts are provided, they are refused. Factual scientific proof supporting the rejection is asked for but never so much as one single time has any been provided. Then the entire process begins again in another thread and another thread and another thread, and so on.

If you or anyone else wants facts from now on go to a local college or Jr. college that offers horticulture classes or go to your local library or go Google and find true scientific research and learn for yourselves because no matter how much I have provided in the past, as Uncle Ben also has, it has always been rejected by the defoliators and doing so again would only result in the exact same thing happening. And as Einstein defined insanity goes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, is something I will no longer do.


Any person who wants to learn the facts is capable of doing so. If they choose not to and instead prefer to cling to their chosen and preferred belief, well then that is what they will have to do, but that will never make them or their chosen preferred belief correct. It will only leave then uneducated.

Again, I don't think this is a matter of simple botanical principles. "leaved make energy, remove them no more energy". That is a dramatic oversimplification of what goes on. I'll tell you what, run a roto-tiller through a patch of blackberry bushes, completely cutting their roots up. "You fuck up a plants roots and they will die" well low and behold, those blackberry roots will release a shit load of enymes and hormones from the damage and when you come back a week later, there will be three times as many BB as there once was..

First off, fan leaves produce vastly more energy than they use. That is a scientifically proven fact. They are the most efficient leaves plants have. That is a scientifically proven fact.

As for the roto-tiller/blackberry bush example, that is another red herring argument that in no way pertains to the discussion or proves or disproves anything even remotely connected to the discussion.

If you want to read some proof why not ask for the very same proof that I have asked for time and time again over the years on not only this site but numerous others ... and not so much as one single time have I received that proof. That is the proof you should be asking for since the other side has been given many times. Just because it has not been rehashed and re-presented in this thread does not mean it has not been given, but the other side, the defoliators side has never once presented any scientifically proven facts.

Try asking for them and see what responses you receive .... go ahead and join me and ask, someone, anyone, step up to the plate and answer the question of when the longstanding facts Uncle Ben and I have referred to were scientifically proven to be incorrect, when it happened, what scientific researchers with what various degrees in horticulture were involved and where did the research take place and if what they provide checks out, if it is valid and not just some made up claim I will totally accept it and not question it and in the future I will say the very same thing as the new findings proved.

That is the proof that has repeatedly been asked for and is required to prove the defoliators claims, but not so much as one tiny shred of it has never been given.

 

[legallyflying]

Well I'm relatively new here and havent seen your other threads on the issue. If you have one with links to studies I would appreciate it if you can post a link to it. The search function here sucks.

Yeah I know the bb example doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on mj as it's a rhizomatous plant, it was more of an example of how blanket assumptions can be wrong. Certainly no dumber than the cut off it's feet example

Seriously though, I do appreciate the effort. Go knows forums can be frustrating at times. I think I'll go answer a CFM question as penance.

 

[Junya951]

Ok after reading these 8 pages i have but two questions. Does scientific research and testing make ANYTHING a fact? In life
(atleast mine) i believe that everything is relative, and because life is ever changing that could in turn change the "facts" of today into the archaic beliefs of tomorrow.
Why does everyone act so serious in these debates? sit back and light a joint/blunt/bowl or plug in that vape and......relax

 

[Canon]

Ok after reading these 8 pages i have but two questions. Does scientific research and testing make ANYTHING a fact? In life
(atleast mine) i believe that everything is relative, and because life is ever changing that could in turn change the "facts" of today into the archaic beliefs of tomorrow.
Why does everyone act so serious in these debates? sit back and light a joint/blunt/bowl or plug in that vape and......relax

Now that's the kind of shit I can agree with!

Besides, the OP already made the decision and moved on. I'm doing the same,,,,,, (after the BHO).

 

[dlively11]

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 .

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. )

 

[dlively11]

It is not as if they begin with a dozen different strains and grow every plant of every strain from clones taken from the same mother plant of each strain and then grow one test group of each strain in the way they believe to be best and grow the rest as they would grow in nature. They do not perfectly meter out the exact same amounts of water and nutrients given to their non-existent various test groups. They do not perform numerous examinations and tests and take measurements on each test group daily, or several times a day, and chart them. After they harvest they do not have a number of various strains grown in differing ways to then test to see if the results they believe they found in the group using their preferred method were actually what they believe them to be or an anomaly. They do not then pick a dozen different strains and repeat the entire process and after that do it again and again until the an unquestionable final finding is found over years of actual research performed under exacting controlled conditions using a very wide variety of strains .... while at the same time other research locations have been performing the same research and in over the years the very same thing is repeated by others and all the research findings are compared and their processes compared to see if they equate to valid and comparable findings to the others and the findings are combined and evaluated and eventually the facts becomes so obvious that even a blindfolded Stevie Wonder in a pitch black mine shaft could clearly see them.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between actual true scientific research and what someone does in their basement or closet or grow tent or store room or spare room or attic or garage and that is what makes the findings of one fact and the other nothing more than belief.

.

Funny I have personally stated many times that I did the following;

Grew over 12 strains all clones from the same mothers

Were given the same exact nutrients at the same exact levels

Given the same exact lighting

Did literally thousands of plants with and without.

Always got the same consistant results with my SOG grows. 10-15 grams per plant average (strain dependent) with no removal and 25-30 with every large fan leaf removed.


What Bricktop and Uncle Ben just dont get or unwilling to give an inch on is that there is a time and a place. Did I somehow get these results by bending the laws of botanical science ? Nope, in fact I have personally stated these plants would yield more individually by themselves if left untouched and not crowded together. I for one never disputed this but rather there was a time and a place where it greatly improves your yields. They also continue to fail at explaining how it is possible to achieve 4 lbs on a single light with massive defoilation if in fact this technique is not valid. They never address this with any kind of real answer because they dont have one. Its a matter of numbers.The large numbers make it possible to achieve these yields. A perfectly done SCROG could also achieve this but would require a lot of work and lots of veg time to do so. These two experts have never had any claims over 2 lbs per light so they really have no room to speak IMO. If they were coming in here saying , hey I get 3-4 lbs and this is how I did it , it would carry a lot more weight. Its all about efficiency. I have heard both of them state that the fan leaves dont really block that much light , something like it only blocks 10 or 20%, but they dont take into account how you are not dealing with a single leaf you have lots of layers of leaves. Once you get 3-4 layers you have cut most of your usable light. Look at massive outdoor plants that have the benifit of the sun giving light to all angles. They still give no bud production at all on lower portions of the plants. Outside it doesnt matter for maximum yield because you have virtually unlimited space. Indoors we do not have this luxury. We re confined to our grow spaces and have to make the best of them. I am not saying my way is the "right " way but I will say it will outyield anything else outside of a vertical grow.

Anyone that wants to prove it to themselves go plant a tray with 32-64 clones and grow it without touching a single leaf. Your terrible results will speak for themself but to make sure plant the same clones again and remove all the large fan leaves by week 3 of flower. You will have your answer and can put it to rest yourself. You can also do half a table one way and the other half the other way. Will still be pretty darn clear what works. I've done this many many times, same room , same nutes, same clones from the same mothers, over a dozen strains and the results are always very conclusive.

I for one have never advocated leaf removal on anything but a very crowded SOG or SCROG grow .

Get off your high horses you two and open your eyes to other possiblities/ways of growing to achieve better results for a given space. Obviously you two are not on this forum to gain or exhcange knowledge but rather to tell the rest of us how to grow and what works. You guys never give any credit at all to results. Unless there is a book proving this for you it just wont get any consideration from you two ever. Even coming from guys like Ed Rosenthal it doesnt mean a thing. Pictures dont prove a thing nor do consistant yields. Try giving your fellow growers a little more respect and credit. Would make this a much happier forum.

 

[dlively11]

In a final attempt to make a dent I'll give a little more insight to my beleifs. In this picture below you can see a massive single cola grown in a very full SOG table that yielded 4 lbs per light (cut and dried). Why did leaf removal work in this particular grow if leaves produce so much of the energy of a plant. I believe the picture speaks for itself when you take a cloe look. See all those hundreds of tiny little leaves attatched to the cola? By removing the large light blocking fan leaves you have then allowed the light to hit all of these other energy producing leaves closer to the bud sites. In fact I'd say there is as much or more leaves in these plants then if they were left untouched. The small leaves close to the budsites got a lot more light which led to them getting larger then they would have otherwise. As you can see in this pic there is no shortage of leaf surface area as a whole. It just made this grow much more efficient then without removing the larger fan leaves.

So rather then it being so black and white "science or no science" it is instead a case of simple manipulation of the enviroment to achieve better results. Some people try and make it seem so black and white, right or wrong, science or no science. They dont look at the middle ground or the possible reasons this does in fact work. Would be a lot more helpful to this community to instead look at the reasons this could work insted of always dismissing it as a scientific impossibilty. Unless you beleive people are flat out lying about their results I find it imposible to dismiss. That was why I personally started to try and grow the way I now do. I guess I could wait and see if someone does a formal scientific study proving this in the next decade or two but personally I dont have that kind of time to wait around and see. I took it upon myself to try it and found the answer I sought. I never imagined I could get results like this. I couldnt be happier. Whatever the reaon is, it works. I get better results then 99% of growers on this forum by doing what some beleive is the unthinkable and I will continue to do so. In 6 years of growing large amounts indoors I am having amazing results that speak for themself.

 

[Uncle Ben]

In a final attempt to make a dent I'll give a little more insight to my beleifs.

You preach the removal of fan leaves and then come in with a low contrast, yellowish, overexposed washed out photo of a plant that is loaded with fan leaves to uh, "prove your point". This is funny as hell!

Looks like Cream of Chicken to me!

 

[Uncle Ben]

I think we have sufficiently beat the defoliation debate to death.

Most dynamic thing you've posted yet.

Wouldn't the increased salinity of the rhizosphere from adding shit fuck loads....

Very scientific indeed.

 

[legallyflying]

Most dynamic thing you've posted yet.

Very scientific indeed.

Yeah. your response however was very thorough indeed. Perhaps you were confused, the rhizosphere is the area imediately adjacent and directly affect by the roots.

P.S. I knew you would be back. Not to add anything of course, but just to be a jaded old man. Fan leaves in the above picture? What? Where?

Speaking of hypocrite, I paid a visit to your photo album to see these monster buds your growing...This is like one of the two pictures that actually shows some colas..and low and behold....someone took the fan leaves off?? Hmmm, interesting.

View attachment 1468950