Alexander Supertramp
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;_-74ss5gou4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-74ss5gou4[/video]
This is what happens when we lose the ability to debate.....
This is what happens when we lose the ability to debate.....
just because they are healthy doesnt mean they arent too big for ur light, if u lst differently and grow shorter you can make better use of ur light and ur fan leaves while wasting less time on veg. one of ur lights is shitty and whats up with ur pics stolen from open grow?
no it is its the cheap shit u couldnt hook a filter fan to it it blowsAnd one of my lights is shitty? Dude you're a dumbfuck, straight up. STFU.
Your plant in your avatar is ok looking, plants come in many manor of shapes and sizes, i would still class your plant as a small to medium plant, as a single plant it would need little canopy managementAnd so is a picture with a plant's leaves left on like nature intended it to be, like my avatar. His main colas are not that fat, nor do we see a room of mature plants ready for harvest. It's about at this point that folks induce premature leaf necrosis due to the application of bloom foods, do the never ending coverup dance by embracing an ill conceived cannabis forum paradigm. If you can't retain 90% of a plant's leaves come harvest, you need to start over and read some books on plant culture....and nutrition.
This is not hearsay people, it's science.
Sheesh, with every new crop of noobies......
Well that's fucking hilarious dude. First thing, my light doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the subject here, I don't remember complaining about my light, ohh wait I didn't because the fucking thing works just fine.no it is its the cheap shit u couldnt hook a filter fan to it it blows
and^^ that means ur plant is too big for the light
This would require them to actually have some growing experienceI know that defoliation works. I also know that there are many other methods that produce great results. There are some assholes in this thread that are convinced their way is the only way. Why not do a side by side instead of being a pissy bitch and saying your method is the only way to go?
that hood is a blowjob dude, im sure it works, but if it doesnt penetrate your plants are too big for it sorry dude winningWell that's fucking hilarious dude. First thing, my light doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the subject here, I don't remember complaining about my light, ohh wait I didn't because the fucking thing works just fine.
Fucking idiots cant win on one subject so they try to start another.
Not even close, better luck next time. When you have pics to back up your mouth come back at me.that hood is a blowjob dude, im sure it works, but if it doesnt penetrate your plants are too big for it sorry dude winning
Works to what effect?I know that defoliation works.
Because it's not about another boring, cannabis forum, hocus pocus "method". May be for you but for me it's about science. You've got every kind of "method" tried on an unscientific basis in these blind-leading-the-blind forums and 90% of them actually work against the plant, like the use of bloom foods which screws up the chlorophyll (pigment) that starts this process and the chloroplasts where they are located. And now you're requesting yet another unscientific side by side as opposed to going to a bonafide source like Mel Frank who includes real empirical evidence on cannabis......real scientific studies done by the University of Miss.? Are you frickin' kidding me?Why not do a side by side instead of being a pissy bitch and saying your method is the only way to go?
I wonder why it works for so many people if it's so wrong?Works to what effect?
Because it's not about another boring, cannabis forum, hocus pocus "method". May be for you but for me it's about science. You've got every kind of "method" tried on an unscientific basis in these blind-leading-the-blind forums and 90% of them actually work against the plant, like the use of bloom foods which screws up the chlorophyll (pigment) that starts this process and the chloroplasts where they are located. And now you're requesting yet another unscientific side by side as opposed to going to a bonafide source like Mel Frank who includes real empirical evidence on cannabis......real scientific studies done by the University of Miss.? Are you frickin' kidding me?
The REAL issue is about maximizing photosynthesis. By removing healthy green fan leaves (which are the plant's most effective and efficient light gatherers) you're reducing the very unit that produces those yields. You guys really don't get it. It's just plain laughable. http://www.ftexploring.com/photosyn/chloroplast.html
Author R.C. Clarke, the authority on cannabis botany, dispels the popular forum 'leafing' myth/paradigm in his book "Marihuana Botany". BUY it.
Also, what in the hell is such a basic botanical question (thread) doing in "Advanced?
Uncle Ben
the sole purpose of a leaf is to photosynthesize, when in the shadows they get almost no lumens(idk if youve ever grown any type of plant but if its in the shadows it wont thrive necessarily, dont need a degree in botany to know that) and later on in flower they can be used as a secondary energy source but if your using enough nutes your plant wont need all those leaves will it? just more opportunities for infestations, mold, etc. so, explain, whats so good about having leaves/branches in the shadows? do you just love your popcorn nugs that much? ill keep training and pruning, have fun trimming for hours and getting immature buds buddy.Well UB when I read statements like, "but on that note anyone who believes defoliation isnt beneficial dosent realize that when a leaf casts a shadow on one below it that leaf becomes useless", its makes me laugh my ass off. Yep, these guys really know their botany!. Fact is its just easier for them to believe the unbelievable rather than the scientific facts presented. Let them prune away, good for them.....
potency, yes. maturity takes longer for buds found farther from their source of light, or shadowed by leaves, they have much less amber trichs. as for yield, yes since the buds dont mature evenly without defoliating a bit(some training helps a bunch as well) and your left with immature popcorn nugs that are just diverting energy from the bigger buds that could mature a week or two faster than those popcorn nugs are going to take.Does defoliation affect the quality/strength of the yield at all?
Although I don't have a degree in horticulture or botany, I've taken several college level courses in these disciplines, and agree that the science is important. In the science of botany we can't be so one dimensional in our scientific approaches to the boxed into thinking that it's only about light, air, soil, and nkp. There are much stronger hormonal actions and influences going on within the plant that we also need to consider. Perhaps by defoliating, although we do reduce the amount of photosynthetic receptors, hormones are released by the plant when it gets defoliated that allow it to photosynthesize at a faster rate. It's something to think about. Don't get caught up in one dimensional thinking. The world isn't flat either, if you hadn't heard yet.Because it's not about another boring, cannabis forum, hocus pocus "method". May be for you but for me it's about science.
Source?...potency, yes. maturity takes longer for buds found farther from their source of light, or shadowed by leaves, they have much less amber trichs. as for yield, yes since the buds dont mature evenly without defoliating a bit(some training helps a bunch as well) and your left with immature popcorn nugs that are just diverting energy from the bigger buds that could mature a week or two faster than those popcorn nugs are going to take.