OscarLaGrouch
Well-Known Member
Now, if you'll excuse me, this ignorant non-scientist with a fake degree from a fake university has a lot of leaves to pick up.
I have read the entire thread, I've been here since the start. To be fair I think they have been pretty easy on you so far!!if you read he entire thread, I gave UB credit and said he may be right but the only person affected by the outcome is me. I tolerated his condescending attitude as long as I can. i said if he doesn't like my thread he doesn't have to read it. then he posts again and again implying that I don't know anything and he knows everything. I don't need the derision. I got brave enough to post the thread because ppl were saying that they wished someone would do a side by side experiment. I am doing it. I just don't need the bullshit.
Did they? no. they used the word 'ignorant' and other non-scientific terms to describe what is happening here.I have read the entire thread, I've been here since the start. To be fair I think they have been pretty easy on you so far!!
If UB, Jorge or Sativied want to post the scientific evidence that defoliation decreases yield in cannabis, then they should be allowed to do so as it balances out the argument.
It has to be cannabis specific though otherwise it is pretty meaningless.
I googled it and my thread pops up first. I guess google has anointed me the foremost expert. hahathat's undoubtedly the most pathetic attempt I've seen to get someone posting facts rather than fiction excluded from a defoliation thread. Nobody gives a fuck about whether you ignore them or not.
If you actually paid attention in class you would have learned that maximum yields come from an optimal balance between sinks and sources and that it's ridiculous to start a test based on the assumption you can improve that sink-source balance by removing leaves (the only sources which I'm sure you know... While you're pretending to do a valid experiment to get a few more grams of mj, many REAL scientists with a REAL botany degree (amongst others) and years of REAL experience are researching this every single day - optimizing the source-sink balance can potentially prevent the ever increasing food problems for the ever increasing world population.
Removing lower lateral shoots that don't make it to a scrog canopy is not the same as 'lollipopping' or defoliating as commonly promoted by the posers. Perhaps you should get your botanic and stoner terminology straight first.
For those who are interested in the facts, google 'sink source balance defoliate'.
I will be back to shoot holes in your results and provide plenty of reasons why your test is far from meaningful so better ignore me. Just in case:
so far the only facts you have posted are:that's undoubtedly the most pathetic attempt I've seen to get someone posting facts rather than fiction excluded from a defoliation thread. Nobody gives a fuck about whether you ignore them or not.
If you actually paid attention in class you would have learned that maximum yields come from an optimal balance between sinks and sources and that it's ridiculous to start a test based on the assumption you can improve that sink-source balance by removing leaves (the only sources which I'm sure you know... While you're pretending to do a valid experiment to get a few more grams of mj, many REAL scientists with a REAL botany degree (amongst others) and years of REAL experience are researching this every single day - optimizing the source-sink balance can potentially prevent the ever increasing food problems for the ever increasing world population.
Removing lower lateral shoots that don't make it to a scrog canopy is not the same as 'lollipopping' or defoliating as commonly promoted by the posers. Perhaps you should get your botanic and stoner terminology straight first.
For those who are interested in the facts, google 'sink source balance defoliate'.
I will be back to shoot holes in your results and provide plenty of reasons why your test is far from meaningful so better ignore me. Just in case:
Need personal observation to confirm your observation. All of my outdoor grows are such that top to bottom all budsites get the same amount of daily photons. The lower buds are still popcorn.That makes perfect sense to me, the buds closer to the light are growing bigger because they are stimulated by the light. Where as the opposite branch is not growing as much because it's not receiving as much light.
So this is where the confusion comes in because phototropism says that by getting more light to those budsites will produce bigger buds, but you're saying that this is not correct and getting more light to the budsites will not produce more bud.
Apples and oranges, not related to this discussion, unless you're after buds that have more sugar and want more pigment in your Blueberry skins.Selective defoliation affects plant growth, fruit transcriptional ripening program and flavonoid metabolism in grapevine.
Pastore C1, Zenoni S, Fasoli M, Pezzotti M, Tornielli GB, Filippetti I.
Author information
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The selective removal of grapevine leaves around berry clusters can improve the quality of ripening fruits by influencing parameters such as the berry sugar and anthocyanin content at harvest.
All of the stoners you referenced are NOT scientists. They were members of a few sites the old timers (that would include me) posted at 12 years or so ago. Shabang was the admin of OG, 10K was a senior mod that published my Griffin's Spin-Out article, etc.Green Reaper (03.12.2002) suggests that large leaves actually take more energy to maintain than they produce. In contrast Thunderbunny (as citied, by Nietzsche, 03.13.2002) states that when a leaf no longer serves a productive purpose, the plant will remove the leftover metabolites from the leaf, which causes the old spotty, yellowing, necrotic image and then the leaf drops. Once that leaf is gone, a percentage of what would be available carbohydrates for future plant growth is diminished in direct relationship to the loss. The mobility of plants sugars and nutrients suggests that fully developed fan leaves are sources not sinks. Whether developing fan leaves are a sink or a source however is not as clear. An actively growing leaf may be a sink, using energy from the other parts of the plant to fuel their development (George, 03.20.2002). Older developed leaves and that are sources. However there is no evidence to support that during the plants life cycle the development of fan leaves takes more energy then a fully developed fan leave provides, that is to say sink phase is greater than the source phase (Nietzsche). It would also seem illogical from an evolutionary point of view that a plant would evolve to produce leaves that take more energy to sustain then they produce (~shabang~, 03.13.2002).
sounds like removing necrotic leaves that are unproductive is the only defol Ed believes in. it makes sense.
please make a haiku about hanging a bulb and then not being smart enough to turn the plant and wonder why the buds grow different on the other side of the plant.This is like the best defoliation thread yet. I'll refrain from Haiku....