Anybody Want To Double Their Yield?- Desertrat's Top and Prune?

[buzzpopper]

No they are not the same. But in a plant that size. I would think that the lower branching could and would have to occur faster with the hormones being redirected to the remaining fan leaves for no other reason than basic survival genetics taking over in the plant. The overall upward growth would slow due to half of the energy source being removed.

 

[Cissy]

A simple ten degrees diff during lights out will make a huge difference in plant yields.

Please elaborate on this. Why would that be? How?

I could get my room down to 60 during lights out if I wanted to, but would that be too much? Should I strive for exactly 85 during lights on (using CO2 of course) and 75 when lights are off? Can it be greater than a 10 degree difference?

 

[desertrat]

What I would like to know is what is you current temp difference between lights on and lights off in veg and flower?

This is really more important than the plant slowing down after the cutting. Its is going to slow down you just cut to energy source in half and it has to be redirected. A simple ten degrees diff during lights out will make a huge difference in plant yields.

Pepole are just not understanding this technique. You are not cutting the energy source in half. You are cutting at most 6 or 7 fan leaves and they have never represented more than 10% of the plant's green mass when I snip.

If you want to discuss the effect of temperature changes during growing I invite you to join riddleme's recent balls to the wall thread - he is extensively testing this out. I am not.

 

[bobbyf123]

I've not tested this theory but as stated in other reviews I've always had somewhat of a green thumb. And also, quite by accident, I learned this during my first grow ever, many years ago. Anyway it appears to work no matter how many leaves that you cut. I did this naturally so that more of the sun's rays could penetrate to the lower branches, at the bottom of my plant. I always felt that the more sunlight the better, and used this excuse to trim all of the larger "fan leaves". At the time of harvest I had no leaves left on my plant to the point that it was hard to locate in the woods when I needed to water. The end result was plants over 12' tall and by toppping once at 2', I had two main terminal buds that were both too big to place in a gallon size zip lock baggie corner to corner and close the bag. The remainder were small to larger buds of all sizes everywhere. Yeild was over a pound and a half per plant utilizing this method. Almost like getting two plants per container without the root-bound problems. Just got my indoor equipment and thus far I still getting excellent results.

SECRETS TO CONSISTENT GOOD GROWS:
Potting soil, nurients, water, root space, seasonal temperatures, cirrculatings fresh air and good strong light.

 

[DaveCoulier]

I've not tested this theory but as stated in other reviews I've always had somewhat of a green thumb. And also, quite by accident, I learned this during my first grow ever, many years ago. Anyway it appears to work no matter how many leaves that you cut. I did this naturally so that more of the sun's rays could penetrate to the lower branches, at the bottom of my plant. I always felt that the more sunlight the better, and used this excuse to trim all of the larger "fan leaves". At the time of harvest I had no leaves left on my plant to the point that it was hard to locate in the woods when I needed to water. The end result was plants over 12' tall and by toppping once at 2', I had two main terminal buds that were both too big to place in a gallon size zip lock baggie corner to corner and close the bag. The remainder were small to larger buds of all sizes everywhere. Yeild was over a pound and a half per plant utilizing this method. Almost like getting two plants per container without the root-bound problems. Just got my indoor equipment and thus far I still getting excellent results.

SECRETS TO CONSISTENT GOOD GROWS:
Potting soil, nurients, water, root space, seasonal temperatures, cirrculatings fresh air and good strong light.

I guarantee you would have more yield if you hadn't removed all your fan leaves. If the breeder Tom Hill can pull 5lbs.+ with his low yielding Deep Chunk outdoors, then you should have produced a whole lot more than 1.5 lbs. Its sounds like alot, but in Cali they grow monsters and they dont remove the fan leaves.

Trying to get more light to the lower branches is just a waste. They are the last to flower, yet you want to remove so much of the resources the upper bud sites depend on.

The earths rotation solves the problem of getting light to the lower branches. No need to remove everything above it to accomplish this goal.

 

[desertrat]

I guarantee you would have more yield if you hadn't removed all your fan leaves. If the breeder Tom Hill can pull 5lbs.+ with his low yielding Deep Chunk outdoors, then you should have produced a whole lot more than 1.5 lbs. Its sounds like alot, but in Cali they grow monsters and they dont remove the fan leaves.

Trying to get more light to the lower branches is just a waste. They are the last to flower, yet you want to remove so much of the resources the upper bud sites depend on.

The earths rotation solves the problem of getting light to the lower branches. No need to remove everything above it to accomplish this goal.

Pruning makes more sense in indoor environments where the light is a static point source compared to outdoors.

 

[buzzpopper]

Please elaborate on this. Why would that be? How?

I could get my room down to 60 during lights out if I wanted to, but would that be too much? Should I strive for exactly 85 during lights on (using CO2 of course) and 75 when lights are off? Can it be greater than a 10 degree difference?

All depends on the plant optimum temp for converting energy to growth. This would vary from plant and strain due to genetics.

 

[buzzpopper]

i cannot claim original ownership of this idea - it was in the old growfaq - but since i don't think anyone uses it anymore, i'm gonna jack it for myself. it won't double the yield of someone already using advanced growing techniques but it is an easy way to improve on basic growing techniques.

anyway, here are the basics
1. either top or fim the main branch after the 4th node
2. on the main branch only, prune every other fan leaf in a staircase pattern. this slows the growth of the main stem and for some reason stimulates the growth of secondary branches.

Perhaps this statement is what is causing the confusion. I read this as the plant having 8 fan leaves and you have removed 4 and the topped the main terminal bud. This would in turn stunt the growth and cause the plant to shoot out side branches at the locations the leaves were left on.

 

[desertrat]

Perhaps this statement is what is causing the confusion. I read this as the plant having 8 fan leaves and you have removed 4 and the topped the main terminal bud. This would in turn stunt the growth and cause the plant to shoot out side branches at the locations the leaves were left on.

You read correctly. Probably my confusion earlier as I'm fully medicated. Never seems to be much foliage but I suppose more than ten percent.

 

[Uncle Ben]

I guarantee you would have more yield if you hadn't removed all your fan leaves. If the breeder Tom Hill can pull 5lbs.+ with his low yielding Deep Chunk outdoors, then you should have produced a whole lot more than 1.5 lbs. Its sounds like alot, but in Cali they grow monsters and they dont remove the fan leaves.

Trying to get more light to the lower branches is just a waste.

Yep, it's another one of those paradigms that was generated and then parroted by new growers who do not understand botany and horticulture, as I explained in a previous post regarding the general lack of effective leaf material at the bud sites. You're not trying to color up an apple or peach people. Sheesh!

Just a side note that may throw a clinker into the mix. It is a fact, measured by CO2 processing, that older (first ones to mature) grape leaves do not produce the amount of carbos that newly matured leaves do. IOW, they are not as efficient nor effective. The same botanical fact MAY apply to cannabis.

UB

 

[DaveCoulier]

Yep, it's another one of those paradigms that was generated and then parroted by new growers who do not understand botany and horticulture, as I explained in a previous post regarding the general lack of effective leaf material at the bud sites. You're not trying to color up an apple or peach people. Sheesh!

Just a side note that may throw a clinker into the mix. It is a fact, measured by CO2 processing, that older (first ones to mature) grape leaves do not produce the amount of carbos that newly matured leaves do. IOW, they are not as efficient nor effective. The same botanical fact MAY apply to cannabis.

UB

That last part is interesting. Ill have to ask my buddy to do some research on that. He has access to large databases of scholarly articles, etc thanks to his school. He loves reading and researching. If he ever gets a break Ill see what he can dig up.

 

[buzzpopper]

Considering grapes are perennial may account for the mature leaves cutting back on production with the onset of dormancy, though I will not be cutting my mature leaves in an effort to produce juicier grapes. With cannabis being an annual or for all annuals for that matter the mature leaves would I would think still be producing at peak levels due to the life cycle and reproduction genetics within the plant. Absolutely fascinating conundrum.

 

[desertrat]

Considering grapes are perennial may account for the mature leaves cutting back on production with the onset of dormancy, though I will not be cutting my mature leaves in an effort to produce juicier grapes. With cannabis being an annual or for all annuals for that matter the mature leaves would I would think still be producing at peak levels due to the life cycle and reproduction genetics within the plant. Absolutely fascinating conundrum.

Physics still trumps biology in indoor grows. In most grow cases the most mature fan leaves are not getting meaningful enough amounts of light to photosynthesize. See my new myth busters thread for detail.

 

[desertrat]

Topping and pruning - 61 grams dried
Topping only - 53 grams dried

Topping and pruning wins by 15%, much less than double but that's explained in my new myth busters - light thread as being due to the naturally short stature of lowryders.

Can't continue these tests in my grow room for another month or so, when I'm going to try Clones and some new strains, so for now I'll just settle for another top and prune victory.

Can't wait for doubters' next attack on my integrity but I'll just keep smoking the stuff they believe I can't produce.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Physics still trumps biology in indoor grows.

Not in my gardens it doesn't. It's a balancing act.

 

[desertrat]

Not in my gardens it doesn't. It's a balancing act.

Trumps - To get the better of (an adversary or competitor, for example) by using a crucial, often hidden resource.

It's a balance that's skewed toward physics because of the inferior light available indoors. Thats why yields were calculated in amount per watt of light, because every grower knew he could win a contest just by adding light.

 

[OZUT]

Here's what I don't understand and this isn't directed to towards anyone but if you don't agree with someone or their method, what compels you to constantly and continuously make the same argument against it or dedicate all this time to try and prove that person wrong knowing that you're not going to be able to? Say what you gotta say once, twice, three times and move on? If you're doing it with the best interest of the people are just starting out thinking they might try it, just know that when they read through any given thread they'll probably come across your argument and will decide for themselves what to do....Here's a guy that tried to contribute something for the betterment of the community and it's turned into a 256 post (so far) thread, with most of the posts serving no purpose but restating something that has previously been posted...I'll guarantee a shit load of people probably started reading this thread but after a few pages, decided to abandon it...so those that feel compelled to beat a dead horse thinking you're helping out the ones that are just starting, know that you're doing the exact opposite...If someone tries something and it doesn't work for them then that's just another experience for that person

That being said, I grow and always top half my plants using UB's technique and I FIM the other half, on top of that, I supercrop all of them up to 10 days before flipping my lights....When I go into bloom, I first remove all growth from the bottom 1/3 of my plants and I will go through all of them and pluck 25% of the fan leaves, especially the ones covering the center of my canopy...I've had grows where I didn't do that and I was not happy with my yield....everything below the canopy was completely blocked from getting light and the buds were not what I wanted...I run (4) 600's and flower between 28-37 plants per cycle and I average 3-4 1/2 ounces per plant...Agree with my method or not, I'm more than satisfied with my grows and am always looking into ways to improve....Fuck the physics argument and fuck the biology argument, show me proof of what you claim...Desertrat has done that and I would probably try it out on 1 of my plants in my next cycle but I don't think the difference would be much because it's almost like what I do now...UB's technique is always used in my grows but not exclusively because my experience has shown ME that their are more things that can be done...

Now go ahead and dissect my post to your hearts content

 

[OZUT]

Oh yeah, for those that constantly go back to the nature argument and how nature put the fan leaves there for a reason and bla bla bla, understand that by bringing that plant indoors and trying to duplicate outdoor conditions you're already disturbing the natural process and certain things may need to be tweaked, such as opening up the canopy by plucking some fan leaves or by trimming the bottom 1/3rd of the plant because it's not going to fully develop because of lack of light energy from your unnatural sun.

 

[Hotwired]

You tell 'em OZUT

 

[desertrat]

Desertrat has done that and I would probably try it out on 1 of my plants in my next cycle but I don't think the difference would be much because it's almost like what I do now

Yes, I wouldn't expect you to get much benefit but I'm always interested in more data if you ever want to run a comparison. The one thing I'll pass along that I've learned is to try and keep the plant canopy at the same distance from the bulb instead of the same distance from the ground.