Lollipopping ( Any Scientific Evidence? )

Doer said:

The entire subject of stretching is as full of ganja myth as the rest of the topics.

Click to expand...

True or False: If the light is too from the plant it will stretch.

Yeah i had a 3 oz bud(dried) my BB and it was 30% lollipop. But it was AIS hydro soil that made the diff. I had to stop AIS till the temps get right. I will make a setup and get a chiller. THen AIS will be back on and watch out for the best of both worlds.

Uncle Ben said:

No they don't. It's obvious you have never grown outdoors.



No it's not, as I articulated in quite a few of the (never ending) defoliation threads. Again, that statement reflects the mindset of most of the members at RIU - you don't understand plant processes, hormonal influences and apical dominance. (And that goes for you too skunkdOc).

Get away from this retarded site and get into one that presents solid botanical knowledge.


UB

Click to expand...

First... I am not anywhere near as experienced as you are as a horticulturist.. so please.. go easy on me. I am here to learn, not fight.

I have seen something that leads me to believe you are wrong, UB. The thing is, I have always agreed with what you say. I'm curious if what I have seen and what you know can co exist?

I grow a sativa hybrid (yep, a mutt) in my flower room. The plant will grow up past the reflectors if I do not train it or if I over veg it.
I have grown this plant in several ways, but, a few of those times I have just went ahead and topped the plant after it passes the height of the reflector (no vertical room to raise the light).
I have bent, topped, trellis, tried many things. I have also left the tops, occasionally, to grow above the reflector.. After they pass the reflector (which they will do, not turn around for the light) they stop developing density and size. They just stop.
This usually happens around wk 4. and they stay like the rest of the growth was in wk 4 while the rest of the plants continues to develop. I have never checked the resin glands to see if the weak tops develop. But I can say with 100% certainty that the tops above the reflector do not develop as well as the branches just below the light, yet, they are at the top of the plant.. or the highest point in elevation. Did you not say that that is not how it works? I have seen it and I could repeat it again


What I am wondering is...
-can what I am seeing and what you are saying both exist? Can what I am seeing really happen if you are correct about all you say in this thread?

these are some of the replies from you that conflict with what I am seeing (I think).

reasonevangelist said:
Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best.

UB said:
No they don't.
reasonevangelist said:
It's possible for the lowest branch to assume apical dominance, if it's the part of the plant receiving the best light.

UB said:
No it's not, as I articulated in quite a few of the (never ending) defoliation threads. Again, that statement reflects the mindset of most of the members at RIU

RambleOnRose said:

I have seen something that leads me to believe you are wrong, UB. The thing is, I have always agreed with what you say and I think there is probably a likely explanation for this.
I grow a sativa hybrid (yep, a mutt) in my flower room.. The plant will grow up past the reflectors if I do not train it or if I over veg it.
I have grown this plant in several ways, but, a few of those times I have just went ahead and topped the plant after it passes the height of the reflector (no vertical room to raise the light).

I have left the tops, occasionally, to grow above the reflector.. After they pass the reflector (which they will do, not turn around for the light) they stop developing density and size. They just stop..
If the top is in the corner of the room it does not stop but it does slow down.. but the tops in the best light develop the most,.. density, size, darker green. The tops that pass the reflector though, they basically stop all together.. This usually happens around wk 4.. and they stay like the rest of the growth was in wk 4 while the rest of the plants continues to develop.

Now obviously, I could be full of shit about all of this, though, I can prove this with pictures in about 10 wks since I just started another flower.

What I am wondering is...
-can what I am seeing and what you are saying both exist? Can what I am seeing really happen if you are correct about all you say?

you said this...

reasonevangelist said:
Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best.

UB said:
No they don't. It's obvious you have never grown outdoors.

Click to expand...

Nope, your observations are incorrect, you must have been high the whole time.

^^real pictures of uncle Ben By the way^^

Ninjabowler said:

^^real pictures of uncle Ben By the way^^

Click to expand...

I've never seen that movie. I don't get it..?

I sort of remember you defending UB in these threads, about a year ago? Wasn't that you? You were new to RIU and i THOUGHT new to growing? What happened?

Maybe it was two or three years ago? Maybe he was right about something? I kiss peoples asses all the time but Ben has always rubbed me wrong with his all or nothing attitude and ive been argueing with him for as long as i can remember. But you are right about one thing, i was a new grower once, and i started here, and i did once post a thread asking the community what do i do when i found a male in my flock. ive done a lot of growing since then and im a gawd damn hard worker and ive upped my game in alot of ways since i started. Ha, i kissed everyones ass when i started here im sure, i didnt know shit. Now i just enjoy hangin out here and helping new growers be successful and diagnosing plant problems if i can help. Kinda like paying back to the site that taught me to grow. Now days i run more strains than most people have plants on this site but in the past i had some killer grows for how inexperienced i was. I just always kept it simple and i still do to an extent lol

RambleOnRose said:

First... I am not anywhere near as experienced as you are as a horticulturist.. so please.. go easy on me. I am here to learn, not fight.

I have seen something that leads me to believe you are wrong, UB. The thing is, I have always agreed with what you say. I'm curious if what I have seen and what you know can co exist?

I grow a sativa hybrid (yep, a mutt) in my flower room. The plant will grow up past the reflectors if I do not train it or if I over veg it.
I have grown this plant in several ways, but, a few of those times I have just went ahead and topped the plant after it passes the height of the reflector (no vertical room to raise the light).
I have bent, topped, trellis, tried many things. I have also left the tops, occasionally, to grow above the reflector.. After they pass the reflector (which they will do, not turn around for the light) they stop developing density and size. They just stop.
This usually happens around wk 4. and they stay like the rest of the growth was in wk 4 while the rest of the plants continues to develop. I have never checked the resin glands to see if the weak tops develop. But I can say with 100% certainty that the tops above the reflector do not develop as well as the branches just below the light, yet, they are at the top of the plant.. or the highest point in elevation. Did you not say that that is not how it works? I have seen it and I could repeat it again


What I am wondering is...
-can what I am seeing and what you are saying both exist? Can what I am seeing really happen if you are correct about all you say in this thread?

these are some of the replies from you that conflict with what I am seeing (I think).

reasonevangelist said:
Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best.

UB said:
No they don't.
reasonevangelist said:
It's possible for the lowest branch to assume apical dominance, if it's the part of the plant receiving the best light.

UB said:
No it's not, as I articulated in quite a few of the (never ending) defoliation threads. Again, that statement reflects the mindset of most of the members at RIU

Click to expand...

It is very simple. You don't design experiments. You are imposing a pattern without understanding the controls for that pattern. Pattens are called stitions, They are everywhere and are the basis of all science.

But our mind will also overlay or superimpose our own false patterns. These are the super-stitions, the anathema of all science.

You think the quality of light above the hood is the same as the quality under the leaves? NO.

Above the hood there is practically no light. A plant will not grow into a no light condition when it has plenty of light elsewhere, It just cut that off. It has not use since it gets NO PAR RADIATION.

So, are you reading this thread or not? I have been through this several times in detail already.

Light is whole plant resource and they will grow into light but the parts that get NO LIGHT are sacrificed.

You are straining to force fit your superstition. Have you ever seen a plant that will turn around and duck under a light? Hell no. So you are bringing in a false assumption, as well.

IAC, there is plenty of PAR below the leaves since leaves pass quite a bit of PAR, And there is NO PAR above a light. So, it is not that the plant is not growing. This is your 3rd false argument. It is growing quite will below the light where there is plenty of PAR even for the larger lower leaves,

You expect it to keep growing out into the dark above the light or turn around and duck in, and that is just foolishly made up conjecture. Light is a whole plant resource not to be wastes pushing growth into blackness.

And I must say, it is very hinky to come on and say you don't want to fight, but Ben is wrong, and then you are propose these false premises.

Grip up, swing more smoothly, I'd advise. And Ben appreciates me taking a turn at bat.
Thanks, Ben.

Science vs superstition

RambleOnRose said:

I've never seen that movie. I don't get it..?

I sort of remember you defending UB in these threads, about a year ago? Wasn't that you? You were new to RIU and i THOUGHT new to growing? What happened?

Click to expand...

Would please see Star Wars and would you all please stop being so personal. No one needs to be defended since no one needs to be attacked.

Doer said:

Would please see Star Wars and would you all please stop being so personal. No one needs to be defended since no one needs to be attacked.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But if that was directed at me.. I am neither attacking or defending anyone. I'm just here to talk about MJ with other people who want to chat about MJ. That's all..

Not really a star wars fan..

Damn! Then I read your reply to my post and you are angry?

I'm really genuine here. I'm not here to argue. I haven't followed all of your past posts on the matter. So I have not seen where you went over this already many times..
If my question bothers you then just ignore me. I will not take it personally.

All is well.. I'm just here to chat.

I never get angry. It is not good for us.

You were talking about attacking and defending, remember?

Doer said:

It is very simple. You don't design experiments. You are imposing a pattern without understanding the controls for that pattern. Pattens are called stitions, They are everywhere and are the basis of all science.

But our mind will also overlay or superimpose our own false patterns. These are the super-stitions, the anathema of all science.

You think the quality of light above the hood is the same as the quality under the leaves? NO.

Above the hood there is practically no light. A plant will not grow into a no light condition when it has plenty of light elsewhere, It just cut that off. It has not use since it gets NO PAR RADIATION.

So, are you reading this thread or not? I have been through this several times in detail already.

Light is whole plant resource and they will grow into light but the parts that get NO LIGHT are sacrificed.

You are straining to force fit your superstition. Have you ever seen a plant that will turn around and duck under a light? Hell no. So you are bringing in a false assumption, as well.

IAC, there is plenty of PAR below the leaves since leaves pass quite a bit of PAR, And there is NO PAR above a light. So, it is not that the plant is not growing. This is your 3rd false argument. It is growing quite will below the light where there is plenty of PAR even for the larger lower leaves,

You expect it to keep growing out into the dark above the light or turn around and duck in, and that is just foolishly made up conjecture. Light is a whole plant resource not to be wastes pushing growth into blackness.

And I must say, it is very hinky to come on and say you don't want to fight, but Ben is wrong, and then you are propose these false premises.

Grip up, swing more smoothly, I'd advise. And Ben appreciates me taking a turn at bat.
Thanks, Ben.

Science vs superstition

Click to expand...

Man; I'm trying to be civil here. But you are guilty of the accusations you make against me.
Let's just take a deep breath.. If you do not want to talk with me on the subject, just ignore it. No sweat.


- I have not seen a plant turn around (vertically) and chase light.. I have horizontally though.

I am reading your reply right now and coming up with some questions.
Again, if they bother you just ignore me.

I am not guilty of anything, you seem to have a guilty conscious, maybe?

I am not accusing you of anything, but if I was, so what? It doesn't make me "guilty" of it.

See what I mean? You are somewhat passive-aggressive and I respond to aggression.

Doer said:

I never get angry. It is not good for us.

You were talking about attacking and defending, remember?

Click to expand...

Yeah.. I remembered Ninjabowler used to always participate in these argument on the "UB side".. I asked what changed? Why he now feels differently..

Doer said:

I am not guilty of anything, you seem to have a guilty conscious, maybe?

I am not accusing you of anything, and I was, so what?

Click to expand...

Dude. you have me deeply confused.

Let's drop all of that..

I understand you what you are saying about Par light passing through the leaves and reaching the lower leaves.. I think.. but that par does not reach above the light. That is interesting.
And it answers quite a bit of what I was asking.. thank you.. I really was asking, to learn, not to argue.

RambleOnRose said:

Yeah.. I remembered Ninjabowler used to always participate in these argument on the "UB side".. I asked what changed? Why he now feels differently..

Click to expand...

I wonder that too. Don't take me personally, OK?

Doer said:

I wonder that too. Don't take me personally, OK?

Click to expand...

I won't.. cool..

So you are saying that the reason they grow below the light (and lower on the plant) better than above the light is because the light IS reaching lower on the plant because PAR is passing through leaves and providing light. The lack of light that we SEE is misleading.. because plants don't use the same as we see.

The growth above the light stopped because the light is not hitting up there. So the plant says "fuck it" and stops growing up there.

Am I on the right track?

And does that not conflict with this?

reasonevangelist said:
Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best.

UB said:
No they don't.

And then, which part of reasonevangelist statement is wrong?

Doer said:

But our mind will also overlay or superimpose our own false patterns. These are the super-stitions, the anathema of all science.

Click to expand...

I know that this is true. This is why I presented my question in the way I did. Not saying "You are wrong, I am right because I saw this". Instead asking why I the presented conclusion is not correct.

I have always trusted UBs advice over anyone on RIU. And I still trust that he has the explanation why that conclusion is not correct. Dude, he's UB.. Whether he will take it easy on me or not... that is another question.
I'm not playing games here. I'm cool..