defoliation when in flower

[Resinhound]

Ah ok so the burden thing is yet another myth. If this does not offend you (as it does others ;p) do you have a good factual link I can further read into?.

Abstract
Net photosynthesis $({\rm P}_{{\rm N}})$ and regrowth of 60-day old Agropyron smithii Rydb. plants were examined over a 10-day period following defoliation to simulate grazing. Plants grown hydroponically in full strength Hoagland's solution were moderately defoliated (1/2 tillers clipped at 5 cm), heavily defoliated (3/4 tillers clipped at 5 cm), or left as unclipped controls. Thirty minutes after clipping, ${\rm P}_{{\rm N}}$ rates of the youngest fully expanded leaf of a remaining undamaged tiller had declined by 6%-7% in both groups of defoliated plants. Rates of ${\rm P}_{{\rm N}}$ were subsequently monitored on the same leaves at 2-day intervals. By Day 2, ${\rm P}_{{\rm N}}$ (per unit of leaf area) of both defoliated groups had increased to rates 5-10% higher than those preceding treatment, while ${\rm P}_{{\rm N}}$ of control plants had decreased about 6%. From Day 2 through Day 10, ${\rm P}_{{\rm N}}$ rates of control plants averaged 90% of their preclipping ${\rm P}_{{\rm N}}$ rates, while ${\rm P}_{{\rm N}}$ rates of moderately and heavily defoliated plants averaged 106% and 114% of their preclipping rates, respectively. Defoliation had no significant effect on tiller production over this 10-day period. While total new biomass production of controls was almost twice that of either of the defoliated groups , the proportion of the new growth allocated to shoots, crowns and roots did not differ among the three groups.

Now this one is referring to grasses ofc.

And for more reading pleasure..

http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/briske/files/2014/03/Briske-Richards-SRM-CHAPTER95.pdf

 

[Flowki]

snip

http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/briske/files/2014/03/Briske-Richards-SRM-CHAPTER95.pdf

Thnx for all that, I will have to go out soon but will read it and respond later. Thnx again.

 

[RM3]

From that crap new crap was crapped: people who haven't even learned the basic trick yet pretend to be able to help others, increase yields, and argue with people who not only learned the basic trick but have a clue as well, or at the very least try to understand. It has held back the cannabis industry so much and so long, so many idiots concerned with growing money and epeen, that I personally can't wait to see professional farmers take over the industry.

Amen Brother !!!

Disp weed in Colorado is barely better than swag

So many clueless people have no idea how good weed can actually be

 

[Uncle Ben]

So many clueless people have no idea how good weed can actually be

Ironically they run towards the hype and gimmicks rather to a book on plant culture. "Designer" seed strains, rocket fuels.....lots of bullshit.

Some of the best pot I've ever grown regarding quality and pretty damn good yields was from Mexican bagseed. Mel Frank who is or was my guru confirms this with his statement in the strains by country section - "Mexican can be some of the best weed you can grow".

 

[jacksthc]

Ironically they run towards the hype and gimmicks rather to a book on plant culture. "Designer" seed strains, rocket fuels.....lots of bullshit.

Some of the best pot I've ever grown regarding quality and pretty damn good yields was from Mexican bagseed. Mel Frank who is or was my guru confirms this with his statement in the strains by country section - "Mexican can be some of the best weed you can grow".

View attachment 3589147

Sativas are just about the opposite of Indicas. They are tall, thin plants, with much narrower leaves and grow a lighter green in color. They grow very quickly and can reach heights of 20 feet in a single season. They originally come from Colombia, Mexico, Thailand and Southeast Asia. Once flowering has begun, they can take anywhere from 10 to 16 weeks to fully mature. Flavors range from earthy to sweet and fruity. Sativa's higher THC than CBD equals cerebral, soaring type of high, more energetic which can stimulate brain activity and may produce hallucinations.
Sativa plants are taller, take longer to mature, have less chlorophyll and more accessory pigments (accessory pigments protect the plant from excessive sunlight). As Sativa strains have less chlorophyll than Indica they take longer to grow, mature, and require more light.

Sativa typically takes longer to germinate and flower also, and grows more gangly then Indica breeds.

Yield is usually lower than Indica, but is very potent. Thai Sativa grows taller and has a longer flowering period, so they are better suited for outdoors.

This is just common sense, a pure Sativa strain is not a good plant to grow indoors under light because of the height they can grow.
seed banks have spent years crossing sativa and indica strains to get short high yielding plants
with a strong mellow high

 

[Resinhound]

Sativas are just about the opposite of Indicas. They are tall, thin plants, with much narrower leaves and grow a lighter green in color. They grow very quickly and can reach heights of 20 feet in a single season. They originally come from Colombia, Mexico, Thailand and Southeast Asia. Once flowering has begun, they can take anywhere from 10 to 16 weeks to fully mature. Flavors range from earthy to sweet and fruity. Sativa's higher THC than CBD equals cerebral, soaring type of high, more energetic which can stimulate brain activity and may produce hallucinations.
Sativa plants are taller, take longer to mature, have less chlorophyll and more accessory pigments (accessory pigments protect the plant from excessive sunlight). As Sativa strains have less chlorophyll than Indica they take longer to grow, mature, and require more light.

Sativa typically takes longer to germinate and flower also, and grows more gangly then Indica breeds.

Yield is usually lower than Indica, but is very potent. Thai Sativa grows taller and has a longer flowering period, so they are better suited for outdoors.

This is just common sense, a pure Sativa strain is not a good plant to grow indoors under light because of the height they can grow.
seed banks have spent years crossing sativa and indica strains to get short high yielding plants

There are alot of techniques availiable to control the height of your plant,I dont get what you are suggesting,dont grow sativas indoors?

 

[jacksthc]

There are alot of techniques availiable to control the height of your plant,I dont get what you are suggesting,dont grow sativas indoors?

read this link fellow

Sativa plants are tall, loosely branched and have long, narrow leaves. They are usually grown outdoors and can reach heights of up to 20 feet.

Indica plants are short, densely branched and have wider leaves. They are better suited for growing indoors.

sativa plants are very hard to grow indoors

hybird thats why seed banks have crossed indica with sativa so you can grow them indoors

 

[Resinhound]

read this link fellow

Sativa plants are tall, loosely branched and have long, narrow leaves. They are usually grown outdoors and can reach heights of up to 20 feet.

Indica plants are short, densely branched and have wider leaves. They are better suited for growing indoors.

and your point is?...sativas are grown indoors all the time,Im not understanding your argument here or what it has to do with defoilating during flower

 

[Sativied]

I have found defoliation works well in small setups,

So your claim is not only that in small setups you get more yield with defoliating than others (who you should learn from) who don't defoliate but also "found" it is true. Bullshit.

Also all lights indoors have a limit to how far the light can penetrate the canopy, 600w hps can penetrate the canopy 18"

Bullshit.

Relatively low levels of nitrogen in the late flowering stage helps promote proper cannabis bud development and will increase your yields

More false information aka bullshit you cannot backup with facts, results, or valid arguments. And coming from someone who never finished a single decent run and burns his plants till they rot... You're not fooling anyone but yourself jack, whether it's pretending to know anything about growing cannabis or being a good troll... It's too transparent, too dumb.

Like your comments here: https://www.rollitup.org/t/why-is-she-clawing.887747/
That's beyond dumb, so for your sake I hope you are just trolling.

Fellow you can say i suck at growing but tbh i have been very happy with my result and you can wind yourself up as much as you want to.

More nonsense. Everything you said and shown shows you suck at growing and are just a complete moron. You being happy with your results is not a valid argument for defoliation, of which you still produced none.

less stretch.

Is not a goal by itself...

love the coloring

 

[DrGhard]

Ah ok so the burden thing is yet another myth. If this does not offend you (as it does others ;p) do you have a good factual link I can further read into?.

''4. Food Storage. The leaves serve as food storage organ of the plant both temporarily and on long-term basis. Under favorable conditions, the rate of photosynthesis may exceed that of translocation of photosynthates toward other organs. During the daytime, sugars accumulate in the leaves and starch is synthesized and stored in the chloroplasts. At nighttime, the starch is hydrolyzed to glucose and respired or converted to transportable forms like sucrose.

It has been demonstrated also that food is stored in the leaves until they senesce. This food is exported to the stem before leaf fall and utilized in the subsequent shoot development.''

It seems to indicate natural leaf loss over light deprived. I'm assuming it's a key difference as it does not talk about the process the plant goes through before it decides the ''healthy but light deprived'' leaf is not worth keeping. At-least looking at mine, those lowest leaves have been in that state of limbo for weeks.

I did read other experiments where a covered section of leaf stopped photosynthesis, I assume that means heavily shaded leaves will also do the same or close and not converting and storing energy other than what it already has.

further more, is it possible the heavily shaded leaf uses it's own currently stored energy to stay alive (in hope of finally getting some light to get going again) and once that is depleted the plant says ''well, good bye m8''.

that is absolutely true. and not only that: better illuminated leaves supplement lower illuminated leaves with sugars to sustain them, that's why leaf senescence does not happens only when the leaf start yellow and dies, but weeks earlier. the yellowing and falling off is only the final stage of a long nutrient-recycling process

 

[Flowki]

that is absolutely true. and not only that: better illuminated leaves supplement lower illuminated leaves with sugars to sustain them, that's why leaf senescence does not happens only when the leaf start yellow and dies, but weeks earlier. the yellowing and falling off is only the final stage of a long nutrient-recycling process

So in essence, as long as your useless leaves have dropped before significant bud formation then no energy is being wasted/diverted on keeping useless foliage alive?. Or, would the plant kill off those light deprived leaves in favor of sending all available energy to bud sites regardless?. Sorry if this is obvious 101 stuff.

 

[chuck estevez]

funny how jack is pro Defoliation, YET, he has no leaves to defoil, He fried the fuck out of them.


ANYONE who says his plants look great, needs their eyes checked!!!!

 

[Resinhound]

So in essence, as long as your useless leaves have dropped before significant bud formation then no energy is being wasted/diverted on keeping useless foliage alive?. Or, would the plant kill off those light deprived leaves in favor of sending all available energy to bud sites regardless?. Sorry if this is obvious 101 stuff.

The plant will always prioritize bud sites,thats its whole agenda here.It will use leaves for storehouses (self sustaining) if they are shaded,if they become a burden the plant will drop them.Cannabis has had a few million years to adapt and learn this stratagy for surviving in the wild.The plant really doesnt need help learning how to grow its own flowers.

 

[jacksthc]

jesus. yet another bitch fest.

hey jack.....your plant looks tight man. nice work...nice yield. love the coloring

thanks fellow

 

[Ponk]

Hey, UB and Sativied,

Why don't you leave this thread instead of insulting everybody who doesn't think like you???

I think that everybody knows what you think of defoliation, now!!!

JP.

 

[jacksthc]

Hey, UB and Sativied,

Why don't you leave this thread instead of insulting everybody who doesn't think like you???

I think that everybody knows what you think of defoliation, now!!!

JP.

ponk there's no point feeding the trolls
they want an endless debate about defoliation and will never stop till everyone grows there way.

 

[BobCajun]

I see the great defoliation wars are still raging. Here's what I did recently, when I could see that there was only a couple weeks left I stripped off the vast majority of big leaves. Anything with a long petiole on it was a target. I just pinched em off where the leaflets joined the petioles to avoid having to dig around in the buds for the bases.

So my objective was to let all the established buds get lots of light and air circulation, and also have an over-rooted situation, in which there is a lot more root to vegetation from all those removed leaves not needing roots anymore. I figure that once buds have their own little leaves established they probably don't need to rely on the stem leaves anymore so they're excess baggage which is reducing airflow and putting out a lot of water vapor, causing mold. I'm afraid they had to go so their roots could be used by the more deserving buds, assuming that those extra roots won't die, at least for a while.

 

[Indagrow]

 

[Flowki]

I see the great defoliation wars are still raging. Here's what I did recently, when I could see that there was only a couple weeks left I stripped off the vast majority of big leaves. Anything with a long petiole on it was a target. I just pinched em off where the leaflets joined the petioles to avoid having to dig around in the buds for the bases.

So my objective was to let all the established buds get lots of light and air circulation, and also have an over-rooted situation, in which there is a lot more root to vegetation from all those removed leaves not needing roots anymore. I figure that once buds have their own little leaves established they probably don't need to rely on the stem leaves anymore so they're excess baggage which is reducing airflow and putting out a lot of water vapor, causing mold. I'm afraid they had to go so their roots could be used by the more deserving buds, assuming that those extra roots won't die, at least for a while.

Isn't it more likely in your theory that the roots, if continuing to uptake the same amount of neuts will in fact over feed and burn the leaves they are redirecting too?, if that does not happen then it's likely the roots are not diverting as you suggest. With less foliage to evaporate water isn't it also likely that you will go longer between watering = less feeding?, amounting to a 6 and two 3's kind of deal.

 

[BobCajun]

Isn't it more likely in your theory that the roots, if continuing to uptake the same amount of neuts will in fact over feed and burn the leaves they are redirecting too?, if that does not happen then it's likely the roots are not diverting as you suggest. With less foliage to evaporate water isn't it also likely that you will go longer between watering = less feeding?, amounting to a 6 and two 3's kind of deal.

I think nute burn is the roots getting injured from too high a salts concentration. I don't think it's possible for roots to harm shoots by sending to much nutrients. I've never heard of that. Longer between waterings doesn't sound bad to me. They get plenty of nutes, I'm sure.