Stompromper
Well-Known Member
Impeding growth my ass.. my pruned tomato plants were 15 feet tall and 5 plants produced enough bushels of tomatoes to can and last me 2 years.
Your a book smart imbecile.
Your a book smart imbecile.
Lollipopping ( Any Scientific Evidence? )
- Thread starter Pass it Around
- Start date
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
What about those which receive zero direct light? Are they "contributing to" photosynthesis? Without receiving sufficient light? Seems like that would be impossible, since photosynthesis is the conversion of light energy to plant energy.
If these unlighted leaves are actually "contributing," then what is the cost:benefit ratio of their contribution versus their energy cost, to be grown? Where does the energy to grow that unlighted leaf, come from? Where else can that energy be more effectively harnessed and used?
If only half of your total leaves are touching light, then your plant is not photosynthesizing as efficiently as it could, but is instead diverting the available harnessed energy, to grow things that Can't optimally contribute, due to not touching light. Sure, they could be used as nute storage banks, and i agree that leaving the stored nutes connected is probably helpful in certain circumstances... but a shaded leaf is not optimally contributing to photosynthesis, and i would prefer the plant use the maximum amount of available energy to build 1) leaves where light actually touches, and 2) fruit. I don't want my light energy being converted to unlighted growth which cannot efficiently use light energy to aid overall photosynthesis. If it's not touching light, it's "sucking" energy (hence the term), but not giving it back, because it can't touch light, and can't contribute effectively or efficiently, to total photosynthetic process.
But hey, if i have some nice healthy leaves that were once directly lighted, but which have become shaded due to new top growth, i'll leave them as long as i can, as long as they're not blocking anything else that i want touching light directly. Plus, i don't want overcrowding or mold issues, or excess places for pests to hide. So i think it's a legit tactic in the right circumstances; identifying the right circumstances in which this practice is useful, is key. Obviously, you don't want to remove what would otherwise produce as desired (which a shaded, puny, neglected "sucker," will not).
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
And you're a sophomore. What's a sophomore you ask? It's an ignorant freshman that has graduated from the status of a Freshman fool.
I practically have a PhD in horticulture with all the quality info I've read, hundreds of workshops I've attended which includes field studies, college classes not to mention 45+ years of growing about everything under the sun.
Oh, nice anecdotal evidence ya got there.
If you're doing 15' tall plants under greenhouse conditions, then you abide by how many leaves it takes to produce X amount of pounds per s.f., retain those leaves, and remove many at the bottom levels. The rule of thumb with vineyard management is it takes 13-15 leaves to mature a cluster of grapes. But folks in cannabis forums are not sophisticated or smart enough to figure how many leaves and what size it takes to get X amount of oz/plant.
Don't know about you guys, but I don't think anyone here is growing 15' tall plants. Grew close to that outdoors in full sun....still had popcorn buds at the bottom. So much for the myth that lack of light causes popcorn buds.
Last edited:
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Can you guys READ and do some research? For the tenth fuckin' time, red and far red light penetrates the canopy, AND, if the leaves don't contribute the plant will pull the metabolites and NPK, etc. out of it and drop it on its own. That action is triggered by a CO2 flag. IOW, if the leaf is not processing X amount of CO2, the mother plant will consider it baggage, of no use, and drop it.
See my red sig line.
Last edited:
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Bullshit....
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
*Excess red and far red, penetrate.
Yes, it does, but to varying degrees. And this then causes specific effects and/or reactions in the parts of the plant receiving different (and perhaps insufficient) amounts and wavelengths. I've been doing research for what i consider to be a significant amount of time now (especially since i'm in the LED camp, where we have increased incentive to take note of spectral differences and specific wavelengths, since eliminating "wasted light" is one of the efficiency benefits of LED...). How much useful light actually passes through a nearly opaque top leaf? Two nearly opaque top leaves? Three? According to my own visual assessment: not very damn much! When i see wilting under-leaves, but everything else looks great, this tells me those under-leaves are Not getting enough useful light, despite the granted fact that certain wavelengths do indeed pass through. At some point, all the useful photons have been snared by leaf material; if any leaf material remains beyond this point, they are not getting enough light, which is where my previous comment comes from: spend energy to grow under-leaves which will never get enough light to contribute effectively, or snip them before the plant spends energy to grow something that cannot contribute (and thus causes detriment via wasted energy)?
Also there is the issue of insufficient horizontal space, in which case 'lollipopping' becomes more relevant. If your lamp can only penetrate, say, 2 layers of canopy... you don't need to spend harnessed energy to grow a third layer of canopy, because they won't get enough light to develop properly, and will therefore spend more energy than they contribute (and on insufficient development, for that matter). That third unlighted canopy is terribly inefficient, because it takes energy to grow something suboptimal, but is also unable to contribute as much as it spends or "sucks." It is a negative sum-total. An unlighted leaf consumes more than it makes, which is both inefficient and possibly detrimental to overall plant health. If you're burning ~90% efficient electricity to grow a <50% efficient plant... that seems not good, to me. I want as much of the energy as possible to be used as effectively as possible. Plus i like being able to access my soil, whether for watering or just poking around, so anything between the top of the soil and the screen, or perhaps my lowest useful canopy level (method depending), is really just causing problems and reducing efficiency overall.
And then we can head on over into mainlining territory, where, apparently, it actually matters which flowers come from which nodes. If you have a 2ft skinny branch with shaded leaves, which will likely only produce a "popcorn" bud, does that seem good to you? I'd rather have 32 colas branched from the lowest node, than a bunch of stem-spaghetti and popcorn everywhere.
It seems kinda ridiculous to get worked up over a useful technique, used by Others, just because you feel it's not helpful in YOUR situation.
If you have enough light in all the right places, keep everything! But most of us don't have that. So some of us try to maximize the efficiency of our configurations, by eliminating what WE feel is "wasted" energy. Yes, that energy "is consumed," but that is not the point: what is produced as a result of that consumption, is the point. If the energy my plant is receiving, is only being half-effectively used, that is inefficient, and is an insufficient efficiency rating, in my book.
If i couldn't read, and hadn't done research, i wouldn't even have an opinion on this matter. I'm only here BECAUSE i Can read, and Have done research, and have directly observed factors and results, related to this topic.
It's easy to see why some people would want to prune the inferior parts, which are expected to remain inferior, due to insufficient lighting for 3rd or 4th+ level canopies. Those photons don't just continue infinitely, they get harnessed. Below that, leaves aren't receiving light, and can't contribute, and can't develop, but still consume energy to be maintained. Eliminate that useless energy consumption, preferably before it ever grows, and what is effectively and efficiently harnessed by the rest of the plant, can be put to better use. Makes plenty of sense to me. ^^
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Thanks old man. Let's see some of your work. Being the expert that you are, I'm assuming it's going to blow everyone away......
Stompromper
Well-Known Member
Bullshit? I can backup my Bullshit with pics.. can you?
Stompromper
Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
If cannabis could read, they'd probably deliberately hermie and thoroughly self-pollinate. I doubt any sentient creature with enough intellectual capacity to understand english, would approve of being grown purely for consumption by another type of creature.
I'd like to hear more about how tiny popcorn buds has nothing to do with light... but while also having nothing to do with that whole plant-energy-distribution thing.
I won't complain if i learn something new today.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Been posting gardens for the last 15 years. Where have you been?
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
May I suggest you start by finding all posts in the many defoi threads I've posted to. I really get tired of repeating myself with every new crop of noobs.
Pass it Around
Well-Known Member
Hey Uncle Ben I do appreciate your wisdom, I do also understand how you go from super nice to cut throat lickidy split. It is frustrating trying to teach others when they already refuse to accept what they are trying to learn.
it is like going into a politics class dead set on your party and anything the teacher says good bad or indifferent about the other party your like yeahhh fuck those guys they don't know shit.. even if they do have valid points.
I don't know if that makes sense but its a compliment to you as well as I think I understand now your frustration and I apologize for calling you Uncle Bucks boyfriend.. Buck is an asshole just to be an asshole your just frustrated with the stupidity of mankind.
<3 thanks for the knowledge, I will continue to let them have their leaves.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the post. Yeah, I get grumpy with fools...don't take them lightly. One thing that's a given, they all have to learn the hard way.
BTW, love Dave Chappelle! The village race baiter needs to watch this one, hah! http://www.cc.com/video-clips/mlg0y7/chappelle-s-show-the-niggar-family---uncensored
Pass it Around
Well-Known Member
One of my favorite episodes, I love Dave Chappelle. I wish he was never pushed out of the comedy scene. I laughed my ass off for years watching his standup comedy and shows. This picture in my avatar was one of my favorite episodes he is as good an actor as comedian imo.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a lot of unnecessary leaf and stem to me.
We can maters, okra, cuke pickles, beans, etc. Maters are about done for this year, been bearing for months. I grow them in 5' tall X 3'D cages made out of concrete mesh. Garden produced well this year and will soon get my second crop of taters. BHN 589 maters in greenhouse are loaded. That's my winter crop until next June. Then there's tons of huge peaches off 2 trees, huge blackberries, olives, pomegranates, outdoor satsumas to come next year, premium wine grapes, pecans and in the greenhouse? Gourmet avocados, citrus, pitaya, pineapple, mango, hatch chiles, herbs, etc. Got homemade white wine vinegar going and as soon as I source pots of french tarragon and grow it out a bit am going to bottle tarragon infused vinegar.
....everything's honky dory until this happens!
Last edited:
Pass it Around
Well-Known Member
hot diggidy damn blackberries are bigger than my balls! I would love to be your neighbor lolol! I have a lot of older gents in my area and they all grow so we share our buds but if they were growing food I would be happier because everyone loves to eat!
Stompromper
Well-Known Member
Unnecessary leaf and stem? Unnecessary leaf you said lmao..
They were tomatoes top to bottom. They served their purpose.
They were tomatoes top to bottom. They served their purpose.
Pass it Around
Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure he was being sarcastic