Pruning - When do you take all the leaves off?

[OZUT]

You 2 are talking about 2 completely different grows. UB is right in that you ARE doing more harm than good....Dlively is talking about a SOG setup. In SOG, you don't just take out the fan leaves but you trim out the bottom of the plant for the simple fact that you ARE crowding the plants fairly close together.

I don't do SOG but I still trim the bottom 1/3 of my plants because I don't lilke the popcorns I get down there. And by trim, I don't mean pick fan leaves, I mean I take a razor blade and shave the bitch so there's no growth. As for the fan leaves, I let them be. If I MUST fuck with the fan leaves, I rather cut them in half than pluck them. That will do a lot less harm overall. You keep your leaf and you still get the light penetration.

All this is fine if you've got a few plants, but it's just too time consuming and overal not a good idea if you've got a decent size grow going.

 

[Brick Top]

Removal of fan leaves will not only slow growth, but it will also hinder the plants ability to rid itself of toxic gases, and also hinder the regulation of the plants temperature via stomata. Changes in the plants chemical metabolism caused by fan leave removal causes the plant to work overtime to rid ‘toxins’ with less leaves, as a result the pant may allocate more growth hormones into growing more leaves to make up for what has been lost. Removing large amounts of fan leaves may also interfere with the metabolic balance of the plant. Leaf removal may also cause sex reversal resulting from a metabolic imbalance.

Fan leaves account for the greatest area for the reception of photons on a plant, thus they account for the majority of photosynthesis which occurs within a plant. Cells in the plant's leaves, called chloroplasts, contain a green pigment called chlorophyll which interacts with sunlight to split the water in the plant into its basic components. Leaves only absorb about 15% of the solar energy that hits them, the other 85% passes through-- but they reflect all the green light, which means it looks darker below the leaf to a human than it does to the plant because our eyes are most sensitive to the green spectrum.

 

[Serapis]

LOL, is the OP serious in this? I think this post was started as a gag. ?LOL

 

[Brick Top]

Fan leaves store mobile nutrients, these stored nutrients are essential in the later stages of flowering.

 

[MeJuana]

Removal of fan leaves will not only slow growth, but it will also hinder the plants ability to rid itself of toxic gases, and also hinder the regulation of the plants temperature via stomata. Changes in the plants chemical metabolism caused by fan leave removal causes the plant to work overtime to rid ‘toxins’ with less leaves, as a result the pant may allocate more growth hormones into growing more leaves to make up for what has been lost. Removing large amounts of fan leaves may also interfere with the metabolic balance of the plant. Leaf removal may also cause sex reversal resulting from a metabolic imbalance.

Fan leaves account for the greatest area for the reception of photons on a plant, thus they account for the majority of photosynthesis which occurs within a plant. Cells in the plant's leaves, called chloroplasts, contain a green pigment called chlorophyll which interacts with sunlight to split the water in the plant into its basic components. Leaves only absorb about 15% of the solar energy that hits them, the other 85% passes through-- but they reflect all the green light, which means it looks darker below the leaf to a human than it does to the plant because our eyes are most sensitive to the green spectrum.

nice. +rep

 

[dlively11]

So AGAIN I ask why do my plants get such incredible yields if I remove all the fan leaves at day 21 of bloom ? Quality is top grade as well, no toxic gases here.Fan leaves are only a part of the leaf surface on a plant. There are LOTS of other leaves on the bud. It seems VERY clear to me that everyone here who says dont touch them has never grown a 4 per SQ foot SOG, period. If they did they would be laughing at themselves for being this closed minded. I'll also bet not a single poster against the removal of leaves has yielded over a gram per watt. Proof is in the putting. I gave my proof not a bunch of regurgitated outdated mumbo jumbo. =)

 

[MeJuana]

Yea lolipopping sog is awesome, undeniably so.. It is true there are so many ways to grow weed and personally I wanna see those grows continued.. Our mumbo jumbo is not outdated, take that back!! Here's a link just on the green light thing it isn't the argument I just like it

Photosynthesis thrown down real nice with awesome illustrations
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/photosyn.htm

 

[Brick Top]

Proof is in the putting. I gave my proof not a bunch of regurgitated outdated mumbo jumbo. =)

One thing that will hold back many growers is rejecting scientifically proven botanical facts and instead accepting what someone believes they observed and the incorrect cause and effect they attribute results too.

What was called "outdated mumbo jumbo" are scientifically proven botanical facts. Scientifically proven facts never become "outdated" and they are never "mumbo jumbo." What is being pawned off as being true, removing leaves to increase production, is nothing more than belief and opinion, not scientifically proven botanical fact.

All the beliefs and opinions that have ever existed and will ever exist will never be enough to prove so much as one single scientifically proven botanical fact to be inaccurate. Not one. Ever.

Sadly some growers will always have an inexplicable need to reject proven facts and instead believe what they prefer too believe and they will always swear that their inaccurate beliefs and opinions trump scientifically proven facts and in doing so they will hold other growers back from becoming the best they could be.

 

[reggaerican]

and the truth shall set you free

 

[Uncle Ben]

What was called "outdated mumbo jumbo" are scientifically proven botanical facts. Scientifically proven facts never become "outdated" and they are never "mumbo jumbo." What is being pawned off as being true, removing leaves to increase production, is nothing more than belief and opinion, not scientifically proven botanical fact.

Exactly. I have been posting to cannabis forums for 15 years or more and seen more crap than you can imagine. I have never seen anyone refer anyone to a scientifically conducted test, except for me and that was a referral to Mel Franks' studies using data taken from the U. of Miss. tests on cannabis. The graphs alone are worth the book's cost.

Regards to another old pHart,
UB

.

 

[AbsoluteChron]

Not a single one of you "never under any circumstances should you trim or train" guys seem to acknowledge that the OP is discussing a CFL grow. It was never specified whether you would be trimming fan leaves from the top or bottom, and if you have ever grown with flouros then you should know how difficult it is to get uniform light coverage of adequate intensity to properly bud the entire plant. You all seem to love the fan leaves as solar panels analogy, almost like solar panels are inherently and unquestionably productive. What is the point in putting a solar panel in the shade? Unproductive leaves still use plant energy to maintain themselves, so if they will not be producing bud (especially at the bottom of the plant) then removing them may be beneficial. I don't think anyone ever said that fan leaves as a whole are unnecessary, simply that there are situations where removing some may increase production.

 

[dlively11]

All I hear is a lot of lips flapping again. AGAIN why are my yields so high if your scientifically proven facts hold any water when it pertains to MAXIMUM yield with a Marijuana plant ? Yeah and at one time it was a scentifically proven fact that the world was flat lol. 5 Years of indoor growing and you act like its some fluke my yields went up 300%. I'll also ask again have either of you two grown a 64 plant per light tray ? You two are simply blinded by your own arrogance. Try to actually grow in this fashion and come to your own obvious conclusion before bashing someone else for growing a certain way. Why is it that every single person that gets really high yields cuts leaves? I am talking well over the gram per watt range. All the people saying dont cut them are the ones with average yielding grows? Hmmm doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this one out fellas. You keep reading those books and I'll keep growing with my pixie dust and magic plants that defy all scientifically proven botanical facts. LOL

Canopy management is critical to growing maximum yield in a small indoor grow period. Getting light to bud sights really is overrated. You guys can argue all you want but at the end of the day I am growing more dried bud then you ever will using those DATED scientific botanical facts. Join the present century guys and get over yourselves. People unwilling to change will never get different results.

 

[dlively11]

Not a single one of you "never under any circumstances should you trim or train" guys seem to acknowledge that the OP is discussing a CFL grow. It was never specified whether you would be trimming fan leaves from the top or bottom, and if you have ever grown with flouros then you should know how difficult it is to get uniform light coverage of adequate intensity to properly bud the entire plant. You all seem to love the fan leaves as solar panels analogy, almost like solar panels are inherently and unquestionably productive. What is the point in putting a solar panel in the shade? Unproductive leaves still use plant energy to maintain themselves, so if they will not be producing bud (especially at the bottom of the plant) then removing them may be beneficial. I don't think anyone ever said that fan leaves as a whole are unnecessary, simply that there are situations where removing some may increase production.

Well said and EXACTLY correct. I have stated numerous times you dont just go hacking leaves out. You need to keep them until about day 21 of bloom at which point they can be safely removed to increase light intensity to many more bud sites. These guys clearly have never grown under these circumstances and it just wont ever make sense to their short sited brains unless they do it themselves. Even with plenty of pictures PROVING that you dont need all those fan leaves to get the highest possible yields they still dismiss it. Cant teach an old dog new tricks I suppose. Sad but true.

 

[OZUT]

64 plant per light tray ?

You're pulling weight because of the number of plants you have. Assuming you have 1,000 watts over that tray and assuming you're pulling 1.5 grams per watt as you said, that's 1,500 grams out of 64 plants, which is 23.4 grams per plant and 3.3 pounds total out of 64 plants. Not really the best grow possible. You're letting yourself get blinded by the grams per watt calculations. My master kushes consistently give me 3-4 ounces per plant using a 600 watt...That's 84-112 grams per plant. In my grow, usually every 11-12 plants gets it's own light (if you want to break it down like that). That means I pull 1,200 grams per light using a 600 (not even using 112 grams per plant)....So if you compare my 1,200 grams with 12 plants and 600 watts - to your 64 plants, 1,500 grams with a 1,000 watts, you'll see what everyone is talking about. The blue dreams under my 1,000 watt lights, will easily give me 1,000 grams. Keep in mind, I don't need 64 plants to pull that weight.

You do a sog grow. You crowd everything right next to each other and you're going to have a lot more shade than people that don't do SOG. You need to trim to bottom of your bitches because they will get almost 0 light. You couldn't do a SOG without having to trim some leaves....But that doesn't mean pulling leaves is beneficial and to do so on a non-SOG grow would increase yield...

 

[Serapis]

I don't understand the arguments here. To each his own. I believe in removing leaves that block bud sites, seems logical to me, so I do it. Some say bend or tie the leaf out of the way.... doing so shades it and it then becomes unproductive, so why not just cut it to begin with? Many plants are pruned to encourage growth and to stimulate them. This is a botanical fact. I don't understand the crowd that says "do not touch that leaf". That is plain silliness. Ed Rosenthall is laughing his ass off at you.

 

[AbsoluteChron]

One thing that will hold back many growers is rejecting scientifically proven botanical facts and instead accepting what someone believes they observed and the incorrect cause and effect they attribute results too.

What was called "outdated mumbo jumbo" are scientifically proven botanical facts. Scientifically proven facts never become "outdated" and they are never "mumbo jumbo." What is being pawned off as being true, removing leaves to increase production, is nothing more than belief and opinion, not scientifically proven botanical fact.

All the beliefs and opinions that have ever existed and will ever exist will never be enough to prove so much as one single scientifically proven botanical fact to be inaccurate. Not one. Ever.

Sadly some growers will always have an inexplicable need to reject proven facts and instead believe what they prefer too believe and they will always swear that their inaccurate beliefs and opinions trump scientifically proven facts and in doing so they will hold other growers back from becoming the best they could be.

Science is constantly updated to account for unforeseen or neglected variables. Holding a rigid concept of what is fact will only hold you back. Do you honestly think science hasn't changed growing in the last 15 years? Standards for optimal growth have undoubtedly become much higher, and there is really no reason to think that with more observation, study and accounting for more variables those standards are not only going to continue to rise. I suppose you also think mapping the cannabis genome is a pointless endeavor, because we've known everything there is to know about the science of growing cannabis for 15 to 30 years.

 

[OZUT]

Science is constantly updated to account for unforeseen or neglected variables. Holding a rigid concept of what is fact will only hold you back. Do you honestly think science hasn't changed growing in the last 15 years? Standards for optimal growth have undoubtedly become much higher, and there is really no reason to think that with more observation, study and accounting for more variables those standards are not only going to continue to rise. I suppose you also think mapping the cannabis genome is a pointless endeavor, because we've known everything there is to know about the science of growing cannabis for 15 to 30 years.

Exactly!!!! But there's nothing proven that removing leaves increases production other than "claims" by average growers...However, there's a ton of info that proves leaving the leaves increases production and not just claims and theories by growers. Outdoors, it would be silly to touch them because you get light from every corner of the plant. Indoors, your light isn't going to penetrate as deep as you want it, so there's 2 things you can do....Trim the bottom of the plant and forget about the bottom growth, which pushes more into the top buds, or you go with the "fan leaf trimming theory" and hack the plant up. That leaf you hack does a lot more harm then the good you get with deeper light penetration. It does no good to get the light all the way down to the base of your plant if there are no leaves to receive and capture that light...

 

[OZUT]

I don't understand the arguments here. To each his own. I believe in removing leaves that block bud sites, seems logical to me, so I do it. Some say bend or tie the leaf out of the way.... doing so shades it and it then becomes unproductive, so why not just cut it to begin with? Many plants are pruned to encourage growth and to stimulate them. This is a botanical fact. I don't understand the crowd that says "do not touch that leaf". That is plain silliness. Ed Rosenthall is laughing his ass off at you.

Pruning isn't removing fan leaves and not touching the bud sites. The concept of pruning is removing the small fruit for the benefit of the larger one. Again, cutting fan leaves is not pruning. By cutting fan leaves, you're not redirecting anything, you're handicapping. Take any fruit tree for example...If you have a branch and that branch has 3 pieces of fruit on it....removing the smaller ones, benefits the larger one...Removing the leaf, handicapps all of them. Take your plant for instance...If you PRUNE the bottom 1/3 of it, the top 2/3 gives you bigger and better bud. Your flowers are what rob your plant of energy, not the leaf....If you want to redirect energy, get rid of the popcorn buds at the bottom

 

[Uncle Ben]

Do you honestly think science hasn't changed growing in the last 15 years?

No, science hasn't changed squat in the last 15 years, and cannabis forums and vendors have only served to add to the hype. It seems the more hype, mystique, and romanticsm folks can muster up, the deeper the shit gets when it comes to growing a weed.

Botany is botany, and it hasn't changed in a millenium.

I really can't understand the interest in forums, mostly noobs, who are so bent on getting light to a bud site. Give me a plausible reason. If you gonna hold fast to a paradigm, at least make sure it has merit.

Just the title of this thread ought to tell you something - that ridiculous parroting with false beliief systems rule in cannabis forums. Pruning - When do you take all the leaves off? Why not at the beginning? They're just in the way, hah!

The advocates for removing the very unit that produces bud have never read a book on botany or plant culture, taken a course in botany, or talked to someone who understands botany on a professional level.

Standards for optimal growth have undoubtedly become much higher, and there is really no reason to think that with more observation, study and accounting for more variables those standards are not only going to continue to rise. I suppose you also think mapping the cannabis genome is a pointless endeavor, because we've known everything there is to know about the science of growing cannabis for 15 to 30 years.

Mapping the cannabis genome and using photon collectors to your advantage are two unrelated issues.

BTW Bricktop, R and FR light penetrates leaves leaving the green color of the chlorophyll.

Speaking of fruit production - it takes 13-15 leaves to support/ripen one grape cluster. Go figure

UB

 

[dlively11]

Man you are thick headed Uncle Ben. You keep skirting the issues I have repeatedly brought up to you. FYI you are the pot calling the kettle black with your parroting.

1, Have you grown 64 plants under a light with or without removing leaves ?

2, Have you ever yielded anywhere close to 3+ lbs per light?

3, Why do my plants get such excellent yields Assuming over 3 lbs per light is excellent when I remove all my fan leaves at week 3 in bloom ?

4, Have you ever removed leaves in a really over crowded grow ?

5, How can my indoor plants with all those fan leaves removed have buds as big or bigger as my outdoor plants with no leaves removed ? Seems impossible if your so called facts held any merit at all.

You can flap all you want about it shouldnt work but it for a fact does. I have done many many back to back comparisons and it has ALWAYS yielded far better by removing them. According to you it should hurt my yield not increase it. Funny isnt it ??? Please try and explain this if you wish to remain so hell bent on making these false claims you know little to nothing about .

Personally I listen to people that have reached the goals I try to attain. Not to people who only listen to what they read and who dont have the personal experience. I listened and did my own experiments to find out the truth .