Is this somthing old or is this somthing new?

KlosetKing said:

Something to keep in mind also, is that calyxes don't photosynthesize. Therefore, exposing more buds to the light isn't necessarily helpful. Couple that with the fact that something like 90% of the actual lights photons pass straight through a leaf, moving leaves are mainly only necessary in a fluorescent situation where penetration is minimal at best.

The trick is to find that balance of moving it in such a way that actual leaf surface area light exposure is increased, and if not careful, turning one of those giant fan leafs sideways or tucked under another leaf can actual reduce your total surface area being hit by light.

Click to expand...

Must any more be said?

I've often laughed at how willing we are to believe that we know better how to grow this stuff than the plant itself knows. If my plant puts a leaf there, it WANTS a leaf there. My best results often come from saying "well, how would it work in nature?" I think perhaps a better answer than nullifying a bunch of leaves (by not letting them do their job) would be to get stronger fans and a lightmover (note the similarities to nature?). This alone almost doubled my yields; the bottoms of my plants became WAY more useful.

Just my $0.02. Your technique doesn't seem harmful...

Also, re: calyxes not photosynthesizing: buds are calyxes AND little leaves - don't the leafy parts of the buds photosynthesize? Granted, not nearly as well as the fan leaves, but I think getting some light to the buds is helpful. Also, if THC/trichomes are a "protectant" from light and UV, shouldn't the bud see some light in order to develop better THC? (Just theories here)

heres the thing, this might not be for everyone but i have 7 plants on a 3x3 table and its crowed. They are all overlapping each other and just need some control. When i now do it, it looks like a huge leaf. If the leaf is upside down or to the side it is wrong. It works for me and it opens alot of light to the buds which have a shit load of leafs.

lostinspace said:

I've often laughed at how willing we are to believe that we know better how to grow this stuff than the plant itself knows. If my plant puts a leaf there, it WANTS a leaf there. My best results often come from saying "well, how would it work in nature?" I think perhaps a better answer than nullifying a bunch of leaves (by not letting them do their job) would be to get stronger fans and a lightmover (note the similarities to nature?). This alone almost doubled my yields; the bottoms of my plants became WAY more useful.

Just my $0.02. Your technique doesn't seem harmful...

Also, re: calyxes not photosynthesizing: buds are calyxes AND little leaves - don't the leafy parts of the buds photosynthesize? Granted, not nearly as well as the fan leaves, but I think getting some light to the buds is helpful. Also, if THC/trichomes are a "protectant" from light and UV, shouldn't the bud see some light in order to develop better THC? (Just theories here)

Click to expand...

and this is where id love for BrickTop to randomly show up with one of his pasted bits of excellence =D i cant seem to find any of the posts that i was recalling, so i dont want to say anything with too much conviction. but how i understood it was, even with the very minimal photosynthesis that calyxs do perform, its almost insignificant compared to actual foliage surface area. again dont quote me on that.

what i DO know, is that while trichomes do contain thc, it seems you are under the impression that they are 100% thc, which they are not. They are damn near 100% cannibinoids by the end, but this isnt until they turn cloudy (thc) then amber (cbd). do this too early and new ones will just come and replace the old ones. the question is whether MORE trichs come back than before after this process, which iam not sure if they do or not (im guessing they dont). if the total number of trichs does not change after said degredation/regeneration, then forcing or hastening the rate of decay is, at best, irrelevent. trichomes can decay to the point of losing all thc/cbd, but again iam speaking of things here i only loosely know of. leaf foliage in the way of light may block light from degrading trichs, but iam not sure to what extent. i would still aim for that balance, with as much foliage surface area exposed to direct light as possible, both leaf and buds.

as for the rest, i think you got it dead on. reproducing nature is exactly what you want, and track lighting with adequate air movement to support stem strength is a great example of that.

lostinspace said:

I've often laughed at how willing we are to believe that we know better how to grow this stuff than the plant itself knows. If my plant puts a leaf there, it WANTS a leaf there. My best results often come from saying "well, how would it work in nature?" I think perhaps a better answer than nullifying a bunch of leaves (by not letting them do their job) would be to get stronger fans and a lightmover (note the similarities to nature?). This alone almost doubled my yields; the bottoms of my plants became WAY more useful.

Just my $0.02. Your technique doesn't seem harmful...

Also, re: calyxes not photosynthesizing: buds are calyxes AND little leaves - don't the leafy parts of the buds photosynthesize? Granted, not nearly as well as the fan leaves, but I think getting some light to the buds is helpful. Also, if THC/trichomes are a "protectant" from light and UV, shouldn't the bud see some light in order to develop better THC? (Just theories here)

Click to expand...

i tihnk that ur right bout the budz needlin more light blast it with uv lol and as for ur fist point ur kinda saying that topping supercropping arnt smart methods , nature is good but natrual plants dont yeild a pound indoors

Sunlight losses 50% of it's brightness and intensity after a 12 inch separation between the top of plants and lamp.
So either way those bottom branches don't really soak up too much sun. but your headed in the right direction.. bending and twisting the stems to fit CFL's in between the branches and leaves?

i was unawarew sunlight came from a lmap...lmfao

well i have to say I'm am surprised that so many ppl feel that the way it is in nature is the best possible way. I mean i am christian and still believe evolution is the method of creation. and i hardly believe anything has or ever will hit the pinnacle of evolution and be at its best possible state of existence no matter the variables. a simple case and point would be basic LST bend your plant over to the side and see if your yields don't increase. another thing to consider in the instance of indoor growing is that we are unable to replicate the light produced by the sun, therefore our discussion is no longer dealing with nature and all other variables must be altered to account for the change of one, especially one as important as the light. and the final thing to consider is the goals of the final out come. Our goals differ greatly from natures. do you leave males right next to your females to ensure they have a supply of pollen to aid in reproduction, of course not, our goal is not to evolve the spices and produce the next generation of plants, our goal is to grow some sweet bud for smoking (nature does not grow bud with intentions of smoking it). Sooooo if our goals for the final product are different why on earth would we used the exact same methods and hope for a different outcome?