GPW? Should we start focusing on GSQM instead?

[canadian1969]

Doesn't say anything contradicting my claims.

The fact that they list all those methods as an option for improving yield basically confirms my claims. They all work.

Besides if one method would actually yield a lot more then the others, they would have said so. They don't. So ... ehm ... what does that say? Or why bother even listing all the others?

Trouble is that not doing anything works too. They left that out, but in most cases the plants will adjust themselves to maximum yields too.

Just this little pearl of bullshit though:


I guess the problem is that you simply don't grasp the whole concept. Unfortunately I doubt you ever will. Head too far in the sand.

There are a lot of myths too though. People think a lot of things will yield them massively more than they did so far. Just like you that you think you can simply double your yield with a simple trick.

There is much more to it why some people get better yields than others.

Point is, it's not in the duration of veg. Well apart from timing the switch to 12/12 right I guess.

Hey man, you did correct me on that, it is more linear in a tent, I took my own measures and I thanked you for that clarification.

Training definitely makes a difference, many ways to do it with varying results, all impacting yield. Even if you do not veg for any longer. Your premise of do nothing to the plant in veg, flip it when you are ready and anything others did during veg makes no difference is absolutely false.

Again and again and again, I am trying to find a metric that fairly compares grows, I have established mathematically that it cannot be done without taking time and energy use into account.

 

[canadian1969]

btw, here is a link to the post he is referring to in case anyone wants some context to the conversation

https://www.rollitup.org/t/height-power-to-canopy-for-samsung-leds.975149/

 

[sethimus]

Hey man, you did correct me on that, it is more linear in a tent, I took my own measures and I thanked you for that clarification.

Training definitely makes a difference, many ways to do it with varying results, all impacting yield. Even if you do not veg for any longer. Your premise of do nothing to the plant in veg, flip it when you are ready and anything others did during veg makes no difference is absolutely false.

Again and again and again, I am trying to find a metric that fairly compares grows, I have established mathematically that it cannot be done without taking time and energy use into account.

you can train a plant as long as you want, in the end, it doesn't matter if ONE plant has 100 heads or 100 plants have ONE head in the same area

 

[canadian1969]

you can train a plant as long as you want, in the end, it doesn't matter if ONE plant has 100 heads or 100 plants have ONE head in the same area

Complete and utter nonsense, how about you start a thread asking if training makes a difference to yield. I will stay out of it. You can get back to me on the results.
If I have two plants side by side and I dont train one, what do you think the ultimate yields will be? Common man get real.

 

[Prawn Connery]

^ That's not what he's saying

Even if you do not veg for any longer. Your premise of do nothing to the plant in veg, flip it when you are ready and anything others did during veg makes no difference is absolutely false

That's not what he's saying.

But hey, why don't you try to extrapolate "training" into your equation?

Honestly, this is all getting a bit silly now.

 

[sethimus]

Complete and utter nonsense, how about you start a thread asking if training makes a difference to yield. I will stay out of it. You can get back to me on the results.
If I have two plants side by side and I dont train one, what do you think the ultimate yields will be? Common man get real.

you really should start to LISTEN and COMPREHEND what other people are trying to tell you. so far you seem to LISTEN and NOT UNDERSTAND. i can no longer take part in this discussion if you can't get your head around what other people trying to tell you...

 

[wietefras]

Complete and utter nonsense, how about you start a thread asking if training makes a difference to yield. I will stay out of it. You can get back to me on the results.
If I have two plants side by side and I dont train one, what do you think the ultimate yields will be? Common man get real.

175 people have done this. I removed the ones with no growth method reported and then we're left with 156 grow reports:


I didn't remove any outliers this time. It doesn't really matter for the result anyway.

Funnily enough, doing nothing actually worked best, but even that difference is within expected deviation. So there is no significant winner in yield related to growth control. It's more a matter of preference. Whatever suits you and/or your grow size best.

Like I said already, it makes sense they perform equally. If any of these methods actually worked much better than the others, what would happen? Wouldn't everybody adopt the one that doubles your yield?

The thing is, you see someone getting double the yield from what you are getting. So it must be that one obvious difference in his grow that's making it yield double. Unfortunately the reality is that there are also tons of people doing the same thing and they do not get double the yield. In the end it's not that one silver bullet that doubled his yield, but it's all of his experience and performance together.

 

[WeedSexWeightsShakes]

175 people have done this. I removed the ones with no growth method reported and then we're left with 156 grow reports:
View attachment 4198363

I didn't remove any outliers this time. It doesn't really matter for the result anyway.

Funnily enough, doing nothing actually worked best, but even that difference is within expected deviation. So there is no significant winner in yield related to growth control. It's more a matter of preference. Whatever suits you and/or your grow size best.

Like I said already, it makes sense they perform equally. If any of these methods actually worked much better than the others, what would happen? Wouldn't everybody adopt the one that doubles your yield?

The thing is, you see someone getting double the yield from what you are getting. So it must be that one obvious difference in his grow that's making it yield double. Unfortunately the reality is that there are also tons of people doing the same thing and they do not get double the yield. In the end it's not that one silver bullet that doubled his yield, but it's all of his experience and performance together.

So according to this chart, just letting the plant grow naturally gives you the best yield? I find that hard to believe but this chart doesn’t show much info about the actual growing, obviously lol.

 

[wietefras]

So according to this chart, just letting the plant grow naturally gives you the best yield?

There is a statistical margin of error on these things. So no. The table really shows that not a single method of growth control is any better than the others. If you add an analysis on correlation then there pretty much is no correlation between yield and growth control either.

Although indeed if anything, natural growth and shoot pruning seem to have at least a tiny advantage.

I understand that it's hard to believe because people want to believe there is a silver bullet.

Still, again, just think what would happen if one of these methods actually worked significantly better than the others. Don't you think more growers would gravitate towards that method?

The data does show that some things do work to increase yield on average. For instance, more light produces more yield per sqft (duh). Also that using cuttings and hydro on average show higher yields. Indeed professional indoor/greenhouse growers (not just cannabis, but also tomatoes and such) pretty much all use cuttings and hydro.

 

[Humple]

There is a statistical margin of error on these things. So no. The table really shows that not a single method of growth control is any better than the others. If you add an analysis on correlation then there pretty much is no correlation between yield and growth control either.

Although indeed if anything, natural growth and shoot pruning seem to have at least a tiny advantage.

I understand that it's hard to believe because people want to believe there is a silver bullet.

Still, again, just think what would happen if one of these methods actually worked significantly better than the others. Don't you think more growers would gravitate towards that method?

The data does show that some things do work to increase yield on average. For instance, more light produces more yield per sqft (duh). Also that using cuttings and hydro on average show higher yields. Indeed professional indoor/greenhouse growers (not just cannabis, but also tomatoes and such) pretty much all use cuttings and hydro.

I could be missing something, and maybe it's my turn to be obtuse today, but why would it not be manifestly superior to train a plant in such a way that a maximum amount of light is reaching a maximum number of bud-sites? Is the assumption that - all else being equal - the plant will yield what it will yield, and that all training accomplishes is a minimum of larf?

 

[WeedSexWeightsShakes]

There is a statistical margin of error on these things. So no. The table really shows that not a single method of growth control is any better than the others. If you add an analysis on correlation then there pretty much is no correlation between yield and growth control either.

Although indeed if anything, natural growth and shoot pruning seem to have at least a tiny advantage.

I understand that it's hard to believe because people want to believe there is a silver bullet.

Still, again, just think what would happen if one of these methods actually worked significantly better than the others. Don't you think more growers would gravitate towards that method?

The data does show that some things do work to increase yield on average. For instance, more light produces more yield per sqft (duh). Also that using cuttings and hydro on average show higher yields. Indeed professional indoor/greenhouse growers (not just cannabis, but also tomatoes and such) pretty much all use cuttings and hydro.

What would my current 4x8 grow fall under? I have only removed some leaves, lollipopped and maybe a supercrop here or there.
I find it very heard to believe not training your plants can give a better yield.
I guess if you pack your area full enough you don’t need to train?

 

[churchhaze]

I guess I should let my plants grow into my lamps rather than pulling them down because a chart tells me it's better.

 

[WeedSexWeightsShakes]

I guess I should let my plants grow into my lamps rather than pulling them down because a chart tells me it's better.

lol
Ya there is some important info missing that the chart obviously doesn’t tell.
For instance how a non trained plant grows more than trained plants?

 

[wietefras]

@churchhaze Snarky comments like that really just show you don't understand.

Of course when you are growing in a shoe box, you simply don't have the option of simply letting the plants grow no. So then indeed the handicap of your flowering box will force you to do some growth control. However, does that mean that simply having an adequate sized flowering room wouldn't work just as well?

@WeedSexWeightsShakes, Well it's the primary method of growth control. I'd say "shoot pruning" if you lollipop the lot. Or if you only do a small thing here and there then perhaps even "natural".

SOG is technically also a form of natural growth. You simply fill the room with plants and let it rip. The plants find their own optimal form then too. The end result doesn't look any different from say a supercropped room either.

Anyway, I really don't understand how people are surprised by this. Again, what if one of those methods actually worked better than the others. Wouldn't everybody be using that? Just think of an answer for that.

 

[wietefras]

I could be missing something, and maybe it's my turn to be obtuse today, but why would it not be manifestly superior to train a plant in such a way that a maximum amount of light is reaching a maximum number of bud-sites? Is the assumption that - all else being equal - the plant will yield what it will yield, and that all training accomplishes is a minimum of larf?

This is why I like mainlining. I do feel having fewer yet bigger cola's makes for less work manicuring.

Although I guess it also depends on what you count as yield. Larf can be used to produce oil or hash. Doesn't count as bud yield, but still.

 

[Strudelheim]

It doesn't matter what you use, use whatever metric is important to you!

do you rent an apartment for $3000 a month, well your going to care about sq feet used.
do you pay 30 cents a killowat! your gonna use g/kwh
do you value your time use g/hour labour
do you value how many months overall for total growth and harvest cycle, use g/week growth
are you simply looking at all input costs then use $$exepenses / lbs or whatever scale you grow on.


The biggest question to ask with any yield comparison is the flower that is considered in that yield. Some people measure popcorn nugs and larf because they make BHO, other people only sell top notch nugs for top dollar and they only want the main cola tops nugs and trim everything bellow. And everyone has different idea of what larf is and what top notch hard quality nugs are. I don't go by size or weight, but density and that again can change from strain to strain.

 

[WeedSexWeightsShakes]

i guess it ultimately comes down to your grow space, like you mentioned @wietefras ”shoe box” lol
I’m guessing most people don’t have the room to grow big plants. So I would assume some form of training is going to get you a better yield than letting them grow natural.
I plan to manifold with my next grow. The idea of less trimming and less work after veg sounds great.
My current grow is like a 4x8 jungle right now lol. I have a lot of work ahead.

 

[Prawn Connery]

I could be missing something, and maybe it's my turn to be obtuse today, but why would it not be manifestly superior to train a plant in such a way that a maximum amount of light is reaching a maximum number of bud-sites? Is the assumption that - all else being equal - the plant will yield what it will yield, and that all training accomplishes is a minimum of larf?

In some ways, yeah that's pretty much it. And it's not as silly as it sounds.

The main benefit of training is to ensure no light is wasted on areas where there is no part of the plant (or plants) growing. The other advantage is to produce an even canopy that receives the optimal amount of light - not more (light stress), and not less (sub-optimal).

If you fill your grow room with clones that all grow to the same height and produce a full, even canopy (SOG, for example), then training/pruning has no benefit at all.

If you grow a single plant that likes to branch out evenly, then again similar result (perhaps with a minimum of training). Or you might have a strain that likes to branch evenly after being topped. Or you might have a strain that takes a lot of pruning and training to reach all the above . . . but might not need any pruning or training if you decide to hang you HID vertically and grow using side-lighting.

Tall, spindly sativas are a good example of this and benefit greatly from side-lighting or vertical growing without any pruning or training at all (I did it for over a decade). The plant always grows toward the light, and diverts energy away from areas that receive little or no light (which die off). That's why you don't need to turn your plants in a vertical grow (been there, done that - no benefit!).

If, on the other hand, we all do what canadian1969 is suggesting and veg our plants for an extended time before putting them in the flowering room, then any undergrowth that receives little or no light from canopy penetration will simply die off anyway - which is a complete waste of energy used to veg it in the first place!

The moral of the story is: there is an optimal amount of surface light for any given space; there is an optimal canopy depth for any given strain; there are optimal growing conditions that will take advantage of both aspects and include such things as temperature, humidity, root zone efficiency (oxygenation, nutrient uptake) and all the other factors we consider in growing (pests, disease, mold, stress factors etc).

It's swings and roundabouts - plants grow where there is light, and die where there is none (in simple terms).

 

[wietefras]

I plan to manifold with my next grow. The idea of less trimming and less work after veg sounds great.

Your mileage may vary of course. My test set is limited, because I feel mainlining works better when you start from seeds and I don't do that too often.

My current grow is like a 4x8 jungle right now lol. I have a lot of work ahead.

I was wondering how much opportunity you have for training that at all. I already have trouble getting to the back in a 100cm deep grow (3'+) and in a 150cm (5') I just gave up altogether. Yet the plants still managed to end up on the same sort of closed canopy with cola's sticking out on top though.

 

[WeedSexWeightsShakes]

Your mileage may vary of course. My test set is limited, because I feel mainlining works better when you start from seeds and I don't do that too often.

I was wondering how much opportunity you have for training that at all. I already have trouble getting to the back in a 100cm deep grow (3'+) and in a 150cm (5') I just gave up altogether. Yet the plants still managed to end up on the same sort of closed canopy with cola's sticking out on top though.

My wife is small so that helps lol. Plan on taking some out of the tent Thursday to get some good defoliation done. Need to create some airflow and light penetration.