defoliation when in flower

[SPLFreak808]

Why is this thread still moving?
Just stop being a half ass grower with half ass buds and get better lights and better environmental control and you wont need to hack up plants! Being half ass wont get you anywhere especially with quality.

 

[Flowki]

A lie is a very simplistic choice of words in this case, but to keep it simple for you, yes, growweedeasy is a lie and the defoliation article is a good example. It is targetted to retards, and the popular opinion amongst retards is that "defoliation works". Growweedeasy cares about page views and click through rates, they are not in the business of helping you or others grow weed. In short, they wouldn't get that many visitors if they had an article explaining the idiocracy of defoliation. That would be like starting a christian site and deny jesus.


I don't have emotions towards defoliation.

"Defoliation when in flower", the topic tile, barely English but regardless of when you do it, defoliating and topping are completely different. If that really is too hard to understand you might as well skip the rest...



You seek the truth? If that is really true, I feel sorry for you cause you will never find it, as you are going about it all wrong. To suggest I have a double standard because I top my plants may have sounded clever in your head but is just creating another obstacle for yourself in your path to the truth. Especially if you're looking for less work... and avoid getting in a situation where you think leaves have to be removed... topping is the way to go, unless you run a sog (many single cola plants, which you can mimick with less plants combined with topping... ).

Factual evidence and credible links proving there is no purple dragon in your garage? Ever heard of shifting the burden of proof? Nobody who can provide factual info and is credible will ever even touch the subject because it's just too idiotic.

Got a link for you nonetheless:
The Trivium is a systematic method of critical thinking used to derive factual certainty from information perceived with the traditional five senses: sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. In the medieval university, the trivium was the lower division of the seven liberal arts, and comprised grammar, logic, and rhetoric (input, process, and output).

The lower division... in medieval times... and you brainless 21st century fuck ups are arguing defoliation... Go back to school and go do something useful. Please.

So basically, insults and question dodge?. I linked you one single example of many more defoliated plants on the internet, youtube etc etc to show the pants are not ''infected'' ''dying'' ''low yielding'' when done right.

You talk about logic and so on. Logically, topping off 60% of an entire plants stem system and foliage seems more damaging than defoliating 20% of upper to mid level leaves. I am not saying that is true or false, but logically.. anybody pulled in off the street would assume you've just beheaded and killed your plant with UB's topping technique.

I smell so much BS I can't help but prod at you more until you give me something I can say ''yes, I get you now''. You've spent more energy raging over this topic than it would have took to just link some informative and factual articles. That is condemning, unless you are trolling me on a 20 post rampage so you can finally dangle some useful info and say ''hahahaha told you so''.

If you can't tackle the questions with ought childish overly defensive rage then don't bother responding, please.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Imagine if everyone was as dumb as defoliators (see idiocracy for examples)... we'd still be in the Stone Age and you would not even have a means to communicate your nonsense.

Excellent points, as usual. There are some common bro-science drills and psychological dynamics that play out in ALL of these defoliation threads.

1. The most common - their lack of a botanical frame of reference aka general plant gardening experiences,

2. Certain psychological defense mechanisms at play such as denial, justification, etc. The practice is justified because it "increases airflow", "gets light to the budsites, "everyone is doing it because it works".

We've heard it all.

And "Flowki", if you think you're gonna come in here expecting a hand out after preaching to me, a seasoned gardener, with your smart ass entitlement attitude, this after calling me names in disrespect.....you got another thing coming. I linked you to some of the other defoliation threads.

You'll figure it out.

Uncle Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

So basically, insults and question dodge?. I linked you one single example of many more defoliated plants on the internet, youtube etc etc to show the pants are not ''infected'' ''dying'' ''low yielding'' when done right.

He stated what every seasoned grower knows it's true. Weedeasy is another dumb ass cananbis website out to make money like the other dozens of dumb ass cannabis websites. They're a dime a dozen.

 

[Uncle Ben]

as i said again the main factor which contributes to the spread of those pathogens is humidity levels at the leaf surface.

Or any conditions that encourage their growth such as temperature, 60-75F.

 

[Uncle Ben]

He stated what every seasoned grower knows it's true. Weedeasy is another dumb ass cananbis website out to make money like the other dozens of dumb ass cannabis websites. They're a dime a dozen.

Here's a perfect example of his stupidity, a statement I clearly refuted showing the lower part of an outdoor grown plant which had "larf" or buds with very little tissue - "Leaf removal stimulates lower and mid bud growth by exposing those normally shaded out areas to premium light."






Here's a shot of (my usual) secondary harvest. The one done a few weeks after the bulky main colas are harvested. It received full sun from sunrise to sunset or to use his embellishment, it received "premium light". This is all lower bud, "larf", without much weight to it.

 

[Flowki]

snip

I seen some of your photos and one in particular showed bud sites from top of plant (although you claimed it to be lower growth). Added with your topping style that seems like a logical dense bud growth pattern and depth of significant light penetration/growth from all I've read. Your particular topping style seems like it needs little defoliation because of the way the stems reach up and spread out inviting light directly down where what would have been the main stem. But, what of the outer edges of those stems and leaves in contact with the stems from other side by side plants?. If you only have 1 plant under one light the light penetrates directly down and that would not be an issue with correct plant spacing. However if you have multiple plants under one light those on the outer perimeter are going to get angular shadowing from the plant directly under the light or basically any light trying to penetrate on the angle from source to the furthest and lowest outer points of those plants.

My 600w light is said to cover 3sqr foot of quality light across the canopy. I would assume half of that figure would be true in penetration from light to floor and ofc spreading in a spherical pattern under and across the lower canopy. As you keep the light some 6+ inches from canopy depending on cool tubes or light strength etc it would seem 1 foot worth of quality light penetration is possible from light source spherically spreading down through the canopy. Although I understand it will ofc travel further the light quality degrades.

What I'm getting at I guess, is that if you have a plants 2 foot in length with a stem before first nodes of about 6 inches it could be beneficial to ensure light is able to penetrate the canopy upto a foot depth. So light targeted defoliation of upper to mid leaves to ensure that spherical light can penetrate within that distance set could be beneficial. No leaves below or on the outer edges of that spherical range to be removed?. Defoliating more would degrade in effect since the lower quality of light is not picked up on account of removing lower bigger fan leaves that were actually using it on account of being that big. With light defoliation above those leaves they should in theory get even more light and while being so big, can make good use of it. the closer a fan leave is to the light source, then the bige rthe shadow it will case. 1 top fan leaf could block light to 5 mid level fan leafs. Question is, does that 1 leafe closest to the most intense light do more for the plant than the 5 mid level leaves would with degraded light strength?.

http://rollitup.org/t/giving-defoliation-during-flower-a-try.839655/page-128#post-11170888

I also did see that post and it's the type of factual info for or against I am looking for. Not matter how experienced a person is I will not take their word on something because they said so. They can be wrong (not saying you are).

 

[Uncle Ben]

I also did see that post and it's the type of factual info for or against I am looking for. Not matter how experienced a person is I will not take their word on something because they said so. They can be wrong (not saying you are).

Are you fuckin' blind?

 

[Flowki]

Are you fuckin' blind?

What are you saying?. You gave the lowest larf extra light after shocking the plant by initial harvest, giving it two more weeks it still produced low yielding bud. That then proves that 2ft indoor plants going from a few inch to a foot canopy penetration from selective top defoliation allowing mid areas to receive ''premium'' light over 90% of the flower duration has no effect on mid level bud on the plant?. I don't care about the bottom few inches of larf that will never amount to anything.

 

[Uncle Ben]

What are you saying?. You gave the lowest larf extra light after shocking the plant by initial harvest, giving it two more weeks it still produced low yielding bud.

No, and stop reading into this what you want to see. Nothing got "extra light" at any time. Ever walked around outdoors? Noticed that your flip flops were as bright as that pointy little head of yours?

That plant had full sun, TOP TO BOTTOM, from sunrise to sunset. Like this plant did also.



Do you get it?

 

[SPLFreak808]

I seen some of your photos and one in particular showed bud sites from top of plant (although you claimed it to be lower growth). Added with your topping style that seems like a logical dense bud growth pattern and depth of significant light penetration/growth from all I've read. Your particular topping style seems like it needs little defoliation because of the way the stems reach up and spread out inviting light directly down where what would have been the main stem. But, what of the outer edges of those stems and leaves in contact with the stems from other side by side plants?. If you only have 1 plant under one light the light penetrates directly down and that would not be an issue with correct plant spacing. However if you have multiple plants under one light those on the outer perimeter are going to get angular shadowing from the plant directly under the light or basically any light trying to penetrate on the angle from source to the furthest and loA t outer points of those plants.

My 600w light is said to cover 3sqr foot of quality light across the canopy. I would assume half of that figure would be true in penetration from light to floor and ofc spreading in a spherical pattern under and across the lower canopy. As you keep the light some 6+ inches from canopy depending on cool tubes or light strength etc it would seem 1 foot worth of quality light penetration is possible from light source spherically spreading down through the canopy. Although I understand it will ofc travel further the light quality degrades.

What I'm getting at I guess, is that if you have a plants 2 foot in length with a stem before first nodes of about 6 inches it could be beneficial to ensure light is able to penetrate the canopy upto a foot depth. So light targeted defoliation of upper to mid leaves to ensure that spherical light can penetrate within that distance set could be beneficial. No leaves below or on the outer edges of that spherical range to be removed?. Defoliating more would degrade in effect since the lower quality of light is not picked up on account of removing lower bigger fan leaves that were actually using it on account of being that big. With light defoliation above those leaves they should in theory get even more light and while being so big, can make good use of it. the closer a fan leave is to the light source, then the bige rthe shadow it will case. 1 top fan leaf could block light to 5 mid level fan leafs. Question is, does that 1 leafe closest to the most intense light do more for the plant than the 5 mid level leaves would with degraded light strength?.

http://rollitup.org/t/giving-defoliation-during-flower-a-try.839655/page-128#post-11170888

I also did see that post and it's the type of factual info for or against I am looking for. Not matter how experienced a person is I will not take their word on something because they said so. They can be wrong (not saying you are).

http://rollitup.org/t/giving-defoliation-during-flower-a-try.839655/page-128#post-11170888
did you actually attempt this yet? Because a good majority of us RIU users have and it doesn't work. When and or if you attempt it, start a journal so we can see the progress and tell you i told you so.

 

[Uncle Ben]

http://rollitup.org/t/giving-defoliation-during-flower-a-try.839655/page-128#post-11170888
did you actually attempt this yet? Because a good majority of us RIU users have and it doesn't work. When and or if you attempt it, start a journal so we can see the progress and tell you i told you so.

I've been trying to find those photos of the RIU member growing in a tall tunnel type greenhouse in the NW. It clearly proves the point that side lighting and/or defoliating is pointless. It's back in the Politics's "Fuck the police" thread about 2-3 months ago if any one wants to search. Shows these huge bushy "trees" with good bud production almost to the ground, packed together probably10 across, one walking aisle down the middle and the ONLY side light those greenhouse plants are getting is those grown at the greenhouse perimeter.

 

[Flowki]

Do you get it?

I am not reading what I want to read. You showed bottom larf on a part of the plant that gets very little to no light even ''outdoor''. You can even see on that plant you just linked the area near the pot (where you also showed your larf) is in shadow. And then once again.... I am not talking about lowest stem larf anyway.

Then you are comparing 1 single plant in ample space with superior sun penetration, ofc it's going to get optimal light exposure and penetration over a typical indoor setup. That would suggest it is optimal to only flower 1 plant per light indoor. A grower who done that for years said he gets 20% more yield putting 4 plants under one light than just one plant but he does one for the hobby. Basically why are you comparing out door along with your mashed up efforts to use the irrelevance of lowest stem larf as an argument. You are avoiding the real question I asked, read it again and stay in context with the multiple plants, light and even canopy.

I will look for this green house link, it will hopefully exhibit more factual info than your full gone conclusion of always being right.

 

[Sativied]

Are you fuckin' blind?

Blind for facts and reason aka ignorant.

I used the word for decades but it wasn't until I joined grow forums that I really started to appreciate the word. The "ignore" portion of ignorant says it all.

1. 
   Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge). The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts.

The most obvious fact that is being ignored is that none of those defoliators produce more than many who don't remove a single leaf.

I also did see that post and it's the type of factual info for or against I am looking for. Not matter how experienced a person is I will not take their word on something because they said so. They can be wrong (not saying you are).

Hopeless... Still stuck on people being right or wrong... You are looking for factual info for or against whether cars drive better without tires, birds fly better with wings, blind people can see better... You are wasting your time looking for nonsense while you surely have a lot to learn that could help you. On that note, have you ever finished a decent run?

 

[Flowki]

The most obvious fact that is being ignored is that none of those defoliators produce more than many who don't remove a single leaf.

You are wasting your time looking for nonsense while you surely have a lot to learn that could help you. On that note, have you ever finished a decent run?

Do you have some credible side by side experiments that I can put this to rest with?.

I am not wasting my time looking for nonsense, no more than uncle ben when he was looking for a growing style better than 1 top cola. I've seen clear cut evidence he was right in that venture but have still not seen credible evidence against experienced defoliation vs none defoliation, growing style superiority aside. So far it is a mess of contradiction and half baked experiments (if ever finished) by either side with something to prove. I'm entirely on the fence but seem to be inviting nothing but personal insult and evasive answers with every question.

 

[jacksthc]

All your going to get on this site is opinions against defoliation

No, and stop reading into this what you want to see. Nothing got "extra light" at any time. Ever walked around outdoors? Noticed that your flip flops were as bright as that pointy little head of yours?

That plant had full sun, TOP TO BOTTOM, from sunrise to sunset. Like this plant did also.

View attachment 3587894

Do you get it?

lmo this plant has less fan leaves than mine, looks like he took all the large fan leaves off in flower
and all that's left is a large amount of bud leaves

good job at defoliation UB

 

[Sativied]

Do you have some credible side by side experiments that I can put this to rest with?.

Wow.... Stuck in limbo looking for cold wet fire.

Speaking of evasive answers, you haven't answered my question. Show me grow results from you in which there are not at least 3 things you could have done to improve yields long before even considering something like defoliation. Why argue defoliation if you can't finish a decent grow even if you wanted to.

All your going to get on this site is opinions against defoliation

lmo this plant has less fan leaves than mine, looks like he took all the large fan leaves off in flower
and all that's left is a large amount of bud leaves

good job at defoliation UB

https://www.rollitup.org/t/vegging-plants-under-40w-t5s.878481/#post-11807835
You can't even veg a seedling without the leaves dying so stfu ...

Oh wait, it gets better...
https://www.rollitup.org/t/vegging-plants-under-40w-t5s.878481/page-4

...you pulled 250 gram in 12 weeks from a 600watt (and before you mention the T5 and 400w, I veg under T8 and then usually roughly 10 days 400w too... Yet I pull over double the grams without removing leaves).

If you had more than half a brain you should realize that obviously means you should not give advice, argue for defoliation, and in general just stfu, get your head out of your ass, and learn from those who don't fail at growing cannabis.

 

[Flowki]

Wow.... Stuck in limbo looking for cold wet fire.

Speaking of evasive answers, you haven't answered my question. Show me grow results from you in which there are not at least 3 things you could have done to improve yields long before even considering something like defoliation. Why argue defoliation if you can't finish a decent grow even if you wanted to.

You don't need to concern yourself with me personally as it is irrelevant. I have nothing to prove because I have not claimed any grow style as superior or inferior fact.. If you need to use me personally as an excuse in order to dodge backing up your statement fine. If you can in fact stop side tracking I'm still on the fence, waiting for credible info other than you know best. Everyone claims to know best with nothing but hot air when asked to prove it, see my predicament?.

You waded into the conversation blurting insults and how you know this and that not to be true but then don't back it up with any links?. Why bother posting mate, get to the point otherwise.

Seriously I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong. I'm simply asking for those who say X is superior and Y is inferior to show me why that is true so I can make my own changes.

 

[Sativied]

You don't need to concern yourself with me personally as it is irrelevant. I have nothing to prove because I have not claimed any grow style as superior or inferior fact.. If you need to use me personally as an excuse in order to dodge backing up your statement fine. If you can in fact stop side tracking I'm still on the fence, waiting for credible info other than you know best. Everyone claims to know best with nothing but hot air when asked to prove it, see my predicament?.

You waded into the conversation blurting insults and how you know this and that not to be true but then don't back it up with any links?. Why bother posting mate, get to the point otherwise.

Ok, you got me, didn't actually realize you were trolling till now... Good job

 

[Flowki]

Ok, you got me, didn't actually realize you were trolling till now... Good job

If I try to sell you a car and tell you it's in fine working order I am within my rights to call you a troll because you request a test drive.

Excuse me for ignoring your future posts of avoidance.