Lollipopping ( Any Scientific Evidence? )

[reasonevangelist]

That is what the LED guys say. "Once upon a time we could not fly." So they suffer the low light, low yield, low quality, because they are learning how to fly. Good luck. I see this as a hobby, so the commercial infighting is what I call Ganja Myth.

Heat, power cost/availability, lifespan of lamp, etc.

Sometimes, certain factors are more important than having the most powerful lamp money can buy.

 

[Doer]

But, since LED grows lousy pot, it is inexcusable, except as an LED hobby.

 

[reasonevangelist]

But, since LED grows lousy pot, it is inexcusable, except as an LED hobby.

If the best i can do is B+, which means i'm satisfied and never have to buy or deal with dealers, that's neither "lousy" nor "inexcusable."

Quality over quantity; function over form. The right tool for the right job. LED is simply "best" in some circumstances, despite the notion that anything less than the biggest and most perfect is "inexcusable." You should have a look at the Good LED grows.

 

[Doer]

I have never seen a "good" LED grow. And I don't like B grade pot.

 

[reasonevangelist]

I have never seen a "good" LED grow. And I don't like B grade pot.

I have, and "pretty good" is better than "not at all." Especially if i know exactly what went into the entire process, and can feel at ease with knowing no one did anything "weird" to it.

Life in an ivory tower must be... interesting?

 

[bud nugbong]

You don't think it is a Myth?

That does mean anything, sorry to say.
.

I dunno man, I tested it in very similar conditions, and it seemed to mean something. "that doesn't mean anything" is something a real D-bag who thinks he's a damn scientist would say. Nobody is sacrificing THC by trimming lower buds. I think You don't understand what Im trying to say. My argument is there, and all you have to say is "the popcorn buds are just as potent"

It worked really good for me and I recommend it.

 

[CaretakerDad]

You know how they say "appearances can be deceiving," and "don't judge a book by its cover..." "what's inside is what matters..."

Some people only want big fat colas; others don't care what it looks like, as long as it smells/tastes/smokes great, and feels how they want to feel.

I've argued in favor of removing SOME foliage, certainly not all or most; my "gut" tells me i should keep as much of the plant as possible, but there are valid reasons to eliminate some parts of it, just as there are valid reasons to manipulate it toward Your desired results.

I find it both amusing and frustrating that people get so worked up over what is apparently merely a difference of desired end results... probably because people have a tendency to go around saying any particular thing or way is "better" or "best." Too much absolutism running rampant in the world.

It's not what you do to your plants, please experiment all you want. Just do it in a controlled setting and use a proper scientific method, the minimum would be 3 subject and 3 control plants run at least 3 times. It is telling others, specifically Newbs, that this is a good or proper botanical practice that causes most of the experienced growers on this forum to pounce. Also what you are describing is pruning which many of you interchange freely with defoliating. This fundamental disconnect is why it is difficult and frustrating for those of us that are often referred to dismissively as "booksmart" to have rational discussions. Carefully worded and often citation or illustration included responses based on experience and science are often dismissed with "I feel" or "I've seen it done" or "it's obvious" followed by some internet hype.

 

[Doer]

It only means something if you take insult from it.

It doesn't mean anything to further the quest for an answer. It is not experiment, only your conjecture. Don't get shook up. It is why we invented science, to reduce conjecture and Superstition.

 

[Doer]

I dunno man, I tested it in very similar conditions, and it seemed to mean something. "that doesn't mean anything" is something a real D-bag who thinks he's a damn scientist would say. Nobody is sacrificing THC by trimming lower buds. I think You don't understand what Im trying to say. My argument is there, and all you have to say is "the popcorn buds are just as potent"

It worked really good for me and I recommend it.

Popcorn buds start later than the colas, ever think of that? If allowed to mature they are just a potent. So to trim will lose total THC weight from that plant in exchange for looks.

I'm smoking some popcorn Sour Diesel right now from my clinic. It was cheaper than the colas but it was the strongest they had that day for sativa. 25.2%

If you think I sound like a dirt bag you should read my stuff in a soft gentle voice, like I write with. Maybe the dirt is all in your head?

 

[Uncle Ben]

Every one of us experienced indoor growers knows that if your indoor plants are too densely packed together or jammed into a corner that theyll end up pale, yellowish, undeveloped, fluffy, unripe, tiny, and just junk where the light doesnt penetrate.

Bullshit......

I pack my plants and for the most part they retain most of their lower leaves until harvest.

This is gonna sound arrogant but you're just not in my league when it comes to horticulture knowledge or experience.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/

 

[Uncle Ben]

Popcorn buds start later than the colas, ever think of that? If allowed to mature they are just a potent. So to trim will lose total THC weight from that plant in exchange for looks.

I'm smoking some popcorn Sour Diesel right now from my clinic. It was cheaper than the colas but it was the strongest they had that day for sativa. 25.2%

If you think I sound like a dirt bag you should read my stuff in a soft gentle voice, like I write with. Maybe the dirt is all in your head?

A few concepts I conveyed in previous posts. The popcorn buds located at the bottom of the plant (and the last to flower) will not receive the attention (carbos, resources, hormones, etc.) of the mother plant like the upper part which starts flowering first. Due to apical dominance the top will receive the goodies over the lower part of the plant. Same action as the plant drops leaves - it's never the top being the first to go, it's the bottom. That is just what plants do, not only cannabis.

Regarding potency, Mel Franks reported scientifically derived data that reflects THC content is often higher at the lower part of the plant than at the upper reaches of the main colas.

UB

 

[Doer]

https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/


Great thread and closed by the clowns as usual. No one and I say NO ONE, that I have seen, can produce indoor colas like that.
And his point is he didn't have to do a bunch of Ganja Myths to get there.

And Hazy, I like you. Don't be hatin' so, how about?

 

[Doer]

I have, and "pretty good" is better than "not at all." Especially if i know exactly what went into the entire process, and can feel at ease with knowing no one did anything "weird" to it.

Life in an ivory tower must be... interesting?

Yeah, you can tell us all about the LED ivroy tower....In another thread.

Little parting shots like that seem pretty punk, to me.

 

[Uncle Ben]

It's not what you do to your plants, please experiment all you want. Just do it in a controlled setting and use a proper scientific method, the minimum would be 3 subject and 3 control plants run at least 3 times. It is telling others, specifically Newbs, that this is a good or proper botanical practice that causes most of the experienced growers on this forum to pounce. Also what you are describing is pruning which many of you interchange freely with defoliating. This fundamental disconnect is why it is difficult and frustrating for those of us that are often referred to dismissively as "booksmart" to have rational discussions. Carefully worded and often citation or illustration included responses based on experience and science are often dismissed with "I feel" or "I've seen it done" or "it's obvious" followed by some internet hype.

Man, does that need repeating! You nailed it.

 

[bud nugbong]

Popcorn buds start later than the colas, ever think of that? If allowed to mature they are just a potent. So to trim will lose total THC weight from that plant in exchange for looks.

I'm smoking some popcorn Sour Diesel right now from my clinic. It was cheaper than the colas but it was the strongest they had that day for sativa. 25.2%

If you think I sound like a dirt bag you should read my stuff in a soft gentle voice, like I write with. Maybe the dirt is all in your head?

See we're talking about 2 different things anyways, outdoors especially guerilla like mine you cant really chop the tops and wait for the bottoms to mature, usually where I am its a race against frost. It truly is a waste of resources is all im saying. Not to mention indoors you want to get as much bud in the limited space you have (so keep the popcorn). As long as you understand what im saying its all good. Certain circumstances call for different methods.

 

[reasonevangelist]

It's not what you do to your plants, please experiment all you want. Just do it in a controlled setting and use a proper scientific method, the minimum would be 3 subject and 3 control plants run at least 3 times. It is telling others, specifically Newbs, that this is a good or proper botanical practice that causes most of the experienced growers on this forum to pounce. Also what you are describing is pruning which many of you interchange freely with defoliating. This fundamental disconnect is why it is difficult and frustrating for those of us that are often referred to dismissively as "booksmart" to have rational discussions. Carefully worded and often citation or illustration included responses based on experience and science are often dismissed with "I feel" or "I've seen it done" or "it's obvious" followed by some internet hype.

I agree: linguistic incompatibility is a problem i often cite, in numerous areas, not just here.

At some point, i realized that those vehemently opposing "defoliation" were arguing against a definition i wasn't using (which is probably the definition they were given by those promoting it).

If we define "defoliation" as "removing most of the fan leaves to increase yield," i can't agree with it. Leaves are clearly necessary. I want as many leaves receiving as much useful light as possible.

But if we define "defoliation" literally, as "de-foliate" or "the removal of any number of leaves," then that definition doesn't necessarily mean "strip the plant."

Too many different (often conflicting) definitions for the same words... contributes to unnecessary disagreements, stifles communication, inevitably produces arbitrary conflict.

Kinda like how people throw around the word "theoretically," when really "hypothetically" or even "speculatively" would be more appropriate. When people say "it's just theories," i cringe. Theory is "the best idea we can come up with, based on the best available info." Hypothesis is "educated guess." Speculation is even less strict.

I have quite a few leaves which aren't getting much useful light, but i didn't remove them because they seem healthy enough and they're not obstructing anything, or contributing to any discernible problems. If i see a problematic situation, i'd rather "reduce potential yield" by a small amount, instead of compromise the whole crop. That factors into my "cut off what isn't helping" approach. Sure, a leaf might be minimally photosynthesizing... but if it's also crammed up against other things, trapping moisture and encouraging mold and/or pests, that's no good, and isn't worth the minimal benefit of keeping it for stored resources. Stored resources become irrelevant if the whole plant gets compromised. Then the whole thing is waste, not just a few leaves.

Pruning and canopy management: yes.
Stripping the plant: No.

If i have a huge fan leaf hogging all the good light, i'd rather remove it and allow all that good light to reach multiple other leaves. Seems like you'd have a better overall photosynthetic efficiency that way (more leaves harnessing energy should be better than less leaves harnessing energy, right? So if you can cut 2 to help 10, that seems like a good thing...)

 

[Ninjabowler]

Bullshit......

I pack my plants and for the most part they retain most of their lower leaves until harvest.

This is gonna sound arrogant but you're just not in my league when it comes to horticulture knowledge or experience.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/

Well maybe your not packing them close enough to understand what indoor growing is all about. What im trying to explain to you which you clearly dont understand, is that when you have a canopy that is so dense that light doesnt penetrate, the bottom is crap....like think scrog. Im sure youve probably never done it so you probably dont have the foggiest about what happens under the screen. Well let me explain for you. It SUCKS. I dont even want to rewrite that its undeveloped, fluffy, and so on again but i have too for you....again.

The argument here is not if the plant will retain its leaves, it will, those scragly crap, lime yellow leaves hold on forever unfortunately. The argument is do you want them on there. Do you want the trimmers putting that crap in the bag thats on its way to the market? The answer is no. I dont want anyone pulling that center of the plant, lower crap bud off and stuffing their pipe full of that crap bud that should have been trimmed off, as a first impression of my product.

You grow outside, under green houses, under a natural light mover (the sun). You dont deal with the same shit indoor growers deal with, you dont have a clue about indoor growing besides being able to recite plant growth processes and soil compositions, and light wavelengths mabey. If you did youd know that cutting branches off, and cleaning out centers, or trimming off side growth in SOG, or removing under the screen in a SCROG, are all steps professional growers take to ensure the best product is delivered.

So scream "bullshit!", all youd like, call me a fool, sit and scream at your computer all youd like, but your still wrong. Ill hack wrecklessly with my fiskars and trim out my garbage buds and lower energy wasting branches to improve my final product because thats what has proven to work time, and time again, while you continue to grow outdoor, with drip systems, under glass or plastic, under the sun, and relentlessly interject into indoor growing threads spreading lies and spewing shit from your word hole when infact its you, that dont have a clue.

 

[Uncle Ben]

If i have a huge fan leaf hogging all the good light, i'd rather remove it and allow all that good light to reach multiple other leaves. Seems like you'd have a better overall photosynthetic efficiency that way (more leaves harnessing energy should be better than less leaves harnessing energy, right? So if you can cut 2 to help 10, that seems like a good thing...)

You do what you want but if you'll LOOK at photos #3 & 4 in this thread which clearly reveals leaves over leaves, branches extending into other plants' branches.... https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/ ....you'll see that your theories, your feelings, are totally invalid as are most. We're talkin' the real world here.

Uncle Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

Well maybe your not packing them close enough to understand what indoor growing is all about. What im trying to explain to you which you clearly dont understand, is that when you have a canopy that is so dense that light doesnt penetrate, the bottom is crap....

Bullshit.....

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. Here, I'll repeat my very recent response since reading comprehension is not your strongest suit. Look at da pretty peetures and see for yourself, uhhhhhhhh, indoor gardens, just in case you didn't get it the first time.

You do what you want but if you'll LOOK at photos #3 & 4 in this thread which clearly reveals leaves over leaves, branches extending into other plants' branches.... https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/ ....you'll see that your theories, your feelings, are totally invalid as are most. We're talkin' the real world here.

Just in case it's not quite clear, the plants shown were not in front. I pulled out plants to show them off, to take pictures. They were crammed in amongst their sisters.

Uncle Ben

 

[Ninjabowler]

Bullshit.....

Hahahaaa, i love your debate style...........all im picturing is an old guy with a bummed leg shouting bullshit at a computer and throwing his cane while looking up threads on SCROG to see if im right.
Cummon you old fart, just admit that under the screen you have to trim it out.......or your bag looks like some land race jungle bud.
Theres no 100% right answer all the time Ben. You cant just say never, or always. SOG guys trim crap off all the time too. Are you going to call them fools too?


Bullshit.....lmfao