Bud Brewer
Well-Known Member
It does make me happy I can control the way the plant grows when I'm happy with the size and structure I flower with tons of colas instead of just one cola and a few branches
Fan Leafs. Blockers of Light Or Energy Producers???
- Thread starter oHsiN666
- Start date
- Status
jack's soil grow
Member
so you think topping reduces your yeild or more main bud sites ?
and hear a top view of the plant
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
What's this crap about "experience"? I doubt if you were even born when I was gardening back in the early 70's.
You have not yet produced a scientifically controlled experiment conducted by an independent, non partisan, bonafide horticultural source...... and if you think I'm stupid enough to accept ANY cannabis forum testimony and anecodal evidence as other than pure conjecture, delusionary chest beating bullshit, you're crazy. Now we have folks trying to beef up their pro defoliation argument saying it decreases internodal length. It's laughable. Hate to clue you in, but calyxes aka flowers do not require direct light to develop nor are they producers of food that the plant uses for tissue production. Now, if you want to strip them just to watch them regrow, knock yourself out.
Since it's long been forgotten by all the noise on this issue, I'll repeat what a real professional, R.C. Clarke, who wrote THE book on cannabis botany and anatomy said. If you don't want to believe a bonafide professional as opposed to being drawn to a bunch of cannabis forum noobies who see what they want or expect to see, you go right on brother.
This is a excerpt on this never ending discussion that comes with every new crop of noobs that think they've discovered something kewl. The following excerpt is at least 15 years old for example posted at the first internet website forum on cannabis Marihemp.com aka cannabis.com. I moderated 6 forums FWIW.
R. C. Clarke author of Marijuana Botany: An Advanced Study, the Propagation and Breeding of Distinctive Cannabis states that there are 3 common beliefs:
1.) Large shade leaves draw energy from the flowering plant and by removing the large fan leaves surplus energy will be available and larger floral clusters will be formed,
2.) Some feel that the inhibitors of flowering , synthesized in the fan leaves during the long non-inductive days of summer, may be stored in the older leaves that were formed during the non-inductive photoperiod. Possibly, if these inhibitor-laden leaves are removed, the plant will proceed to flower more quickly when the shorter days of fall trigger flowering,
3.) Large fan leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small, atrophied, interior floral clusters may begin to develop if they receive more light.
Few, if any, of the theories behind "leafing" have any validity.
The large fan leaves have a definite function in the growth and development of cannabis. Large leaves serve as photosynthetic factories for the production of sugars and other necessary growth substances. They do create shade, but at the same time they are collecting valuable solar energy and producing foods that will be used during the floral development of the plant. Premature removal of the fan leaves may cause stunting because the potential for photosynthesis is reduced.
Most cannabis plants begin to lose their larger leaves when they enter the flowering stage and this trend continues on until senescence (death of the plant).
He also states that removing large amounts of fan leaves will also interfere with the metabolic balance of the plant. Leaf removal may also cause SEX REVERSAL resulting from a metabolic imbalance.
He goes on to say that cannabis grows largest when provided with plentiful nutrients, sunlight, and water, and left alone to grow and mature naturally. It must be remembered that any alteration of the natural life cycle of cannabis will affect productivity.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Say what? Dats wat I'm talkin' bout folks!
How about using some punctuation when posing your "real world experiences".
Bud Brewer
Well-Known Member
It's clear you have difficulty reading and understanding anything you did your learning years ago and have closed your mind since.
Figong
Well-Known Member
I thought a record was trying to be set for the longest run-on sentence, personally.
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Being a commercial niche farmer, I'm still learning. My current practices have evolved from my failures and successes. That is what's called experience and knowledge. You will get there in due time.
UB
Bud Brewer
Well-Known Member
Yes any alteration will affect productivity if done with experince it will increase there are many different methods of plant manipulation that have been used with success just because you have closed your mind off to anything but topping that shocks a plant for a week your cutting off the main growth.What's this crap about "experience"? I doubt if you were even born when I was gardening back in the early 70's.
I have plenty of experience in general and with this topic I have done it many times over the years anytime I thought a plant was to tall or thin deleafing will bring out more branching but since YOU have no experience with this you don't know shit.
You have not yet produced a scientifically controlled experiment conducted by an independent, non partisan, bonafide horticultural source...... and if you think I'm stupid enough to accept ANY cannabis forum testimony and anecodal evidence as other than pure conjecture, delusionary chest beating bullshit, you're crazy.
Here are some studies
Here Is a study Compensatory growth responses to defoliation and light availability in two native Mexican woody plant species
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...66467409990514
Defoliation, often caused by herbivory, is a common cause of biomass loss for plants that can affect current and future growth and reproduction. There are three
models that predict contrasting compensatory growth responses of plants to herbivory and resource availability: (1) Growth rate model, (2) Compensatory continuum
hypothesis and (3) Limiting resource model. The predictions of these three models were tested on the tree Brosimum alicastrum and the liana Vitis tiliifolia.
Seedlings were subjected to three levels of experimental defoliation (0%, 50% and 90% leaf removal) along a light resource gradient (1%, 9% and 65% of full sun).
In both species, defoliation significantly increased leaf production rate and relative growth rate of leaf area, but not of biomass.
Net assimilation rate was the strongest driver of biomass growth in both species, but leaf area ratio and specific leaf area were also important in B. alicastrum.
Compensatory responses of leaf area growth in B. alicastrum were significantly greater in higher than lower light availability, consistent with the compensatory
continuum hypothesis predictions, but in contrast to the growth rate model predictions. The limiting resource model offered an explanation for all possible
experimental outcomes by directly considering the effects of environmental differences in resource availability.
(Accepted August 5 2003)
Just one more with corn http://journals.cambridge.org/action...21859600062043
Defoliation studies in hybrid maize: II. Dry-matter accumulation, LAI, silking and yield components*
R. P. Singha1 and K. P. P. Naira1
a1 Department of Agronomy, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India
SUMMARY
Data are presented from an experiment made in two crop seasons, to examine the effects of plant density and degree of defoliation at different stages of growth
in maize at Pantnagar, India, on the dry-matter accumulation in different plant parts, leaf area index (LAI), time of silking and grain yield components.
Different patterns of dry-matter accumulation in various plant parts was observed. Silking was delayed by increasing plant density. Defoliation (even partial)
at the 16th fully expanded leaf stage resulted in substantial reduction in LAI and such yield components as number of ears, ear length, ear diameter and
1000-grain weight. On the other hand, partial defoliation done at the 10th fully expanded leaf stage to simulate an ‘erectophile canopy’ led to yield increases
even under high plant density (90000 plants/ha) in the Kharif (rainy season), mainly through an increase in number of ears, 1000-grain weight and grain to stover
ratio coupled with a reduction in barrenness and percentage of lodging. It is suggested that an increase in the photosynthetic efficiency per unit area of leaf
resulting from the ‘erectophile canopy’ is the reason for these effects.
(Received December 18 1974)
http://www.actahort.org/books/218/218_10.htm
LEAF YIELD RESPONSE OF ETHIOPIAN MUSTARD (BRASSICA CARINATA A BR) SELECTIONS TO DEFOLIATION REGIMES
Authors: N.A. Mnzava, W.W. Msikita
Abstract:
The influence of leaf harvest frequency (weekly or bi-weekly) and amount of leaf removal (10%, 50% or 75%) on total yield of three local Ethiopian mustard
selections 'CRRS-V', 'CRRS-II' and 'Mulio Giant' were studied during two consecutive winter seasons in the field. The amount of leaves removed at each harvest
rather than harvest frequency significantly affected total yield which was test cultivar-dependent. Yield increased with defoliation rate to an optimum at 27 t
ha-1 for 'Mulio Giant', and 40 t ha-1 in 'CRRS-II' under either a 50% weekly or 75% bi-weekly harvest frequency, while 'CRRS-V' attained 55 t ha-1 under a
50% bi-weekly harvest frequency. More frequent and intense defoliation tended to prolong the vegetative phase in all cultivars. The physiological consequences
of defoliation on earliness to flower and compensatory growth in relation to yield variation in vegetable mustard is discussed.
This showed no loss in grain weight but increased leaf production and photosynthesis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
Effects of timing and defoliation intensity on growth, yield and gas exchange rate of wheat grown under well-watered and drought conditions.
Ahmadi A, Joudi M.
Source
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
Abstract
The aim of this research was to determine the effects of timing and intensity of source reduction on grain yield of wheat under well-watered and drought stress
conditions. A field experiment was conducted at the research farm of the Agriculture College, University of Tehran, Karaj, in 2003-2004. Drought stress was
imposed when plants were at the second node stage by withholding watering and plants were re-irrigated when they showed signs of wilting or leaf rolling,
particularly during the morning. Various intensities of leaf defoliation were performed at three growth stages: booting, anthesis and 20 days after anthesis.
Flag leaf gas exchange parameters as well as chlorophyll content measurements were made 20 days after defoliation at each growth stage. Generally leaf removal
appeared to stimulate an increase of net photosynthesis rate (p(n)) and stomatal conductance (g(s)) of the remaining flag leaf. With leaf removal, stability of
the flag leaf chlorophyll content tended to increase. Neither grain yield, nor protein content were affected by defoliation. Interestingly, even removal of all
leaves at anthesis stage did not reduce grain yield and grain protein significantly. Increased remobilization of stored photoassimilate, decreased maintenance
respiration by source reduction and therefore enhanced photoassimilate partitioning toward grain and spike photosynthesis might be responsible for sustain grain
growth in this condition.
another http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...67880905002793
Current-year defoliation increased both quality and production of protein and energy compared to non-defoliated plots
We assessed the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on ruminant forage quality and nutrient yields during 4 years in semiarid shortgrass steppe where grazing by
domestic livestock is the primary land-use. A defoliation and a nitrogen fertilization treatment were superimposed on CO2 treatments in large open-top chambers.
CO2 effects on forage soluble and fiber (celluloses, lignin) constituents were small, even though mid-growing season yield and end of season production increased.
However, large negative effects of elevated CO2 were evident in crude protein concentrations and digestibility of forages. While the effects were more negative
mid-growing season than autumn, a reduction in already poor quality autumn forage may be more critical to animals. Crude protein concentrations of autumn forage
on the elevated CO2 treatment fell below critical maintenance requirements 3 out of 4 years, compared to 1 of 4 for ambient and control treatments.
Forage digestibility declined 14% mid-season and 10% in autumn with elevated CO2. Negative effects of elevated CO2 on animal performance mediated through forage
quality are likely to be greater than the positive effects of increased quantity, because quality drops to critically low levels that can inhibit utilization.
Further, elevated CO2 shifted the proportional availability of protein and energy to a species of lower overall quality and the species most negatively affected
by drought. Current-year defoliation increased both quality and production of protein and energy compared to non-defoliated plots, but no CO2 by defoliation
treatment interactions were observed. Nitrogen fertilization increased crude protein concentrations and digestibilities, but not in the least nutritious species
that increased with elevated CO2 or in autumn when quality was lowest.
One more http://journals.cambridge.org/action...1447970002353X
Effects of Artificial Defoliation (Simulating Pest Damage) on Varieties of Upland Rice
W. E. Taylora1
a1 Njala University College, University of Sierra Leone, P. M. B. Freetown
Abstract
Artificial defoliation was used to simulate grazing by cutting-grass or cane-rat (Thryonomys swinderianus), on three rices with durations of 110–115, 130–135
and 140–145 days respectively, defoliated before, during and soon after tillering by removing leaves to half, two-thirds and the total height of the plants.
All varieties showed marked compensatory growth, resulting in increased tillering and yield, especially when defoliated during tillering, but yield fell when
foliage was removed after tillering, especially with shorter duration rice. Defoliation to half the height of the plant during tillering had the most beneficial
effect, whereas removal of all leaves to soil level after the tillering stage had the most adverse effect.
And another it produces more corn & double the cotton in dry conditions http://journals.cambridge.org/action...14479703001534
EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF DEFOLIATION ON GROWTH AND PRODUCTION OF WATER-STRESSED MAIZE AND COTTON PLANTS
Z. YANG a1c1 and D. J. MIDMORE a1
a1 Plant Sciences Group, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences Central Queensland University, Rockhampton Qld 4702, Australia
Article author query
yang z [PubMed][Google Scholar]
midmore d [PubMed][Google Scholar]
Abstract
In this study, different levels of defoliation were imposed on a determinate species (maize) and a relatively indeterminate species (cotton).
The aim was to quantify the effects of defoliation on plant growth and production, under either optimum or water-stressed conditions. Under well-watered conditions,
33% defoliation twice (conducted 28 and 35 days after emergence) resulted in a 16% reduction in grain yield of maize while 67% defoliation once
(conducted 28 days after emergence) had no significant effect on yield. Under water stress, the grain yields of maize plants with 33% (twice) and 67% defoliation
were 13.5% and 25% greater than that of non-defoliated control plants, respectively. For cotton, the reproductive yields (seed and lint) with 33% and 67% defoliation
(conducted 43 days after emergence) were reduced, under well-watered conditions, by 28% and 37% of that of the non-defoliated control, respectively.
Defoliated cotton plants lost less fruiting forms (squares and young bolls) than non-defoliated plants during water stress. Therefore, under water stress the
harvestable product of cotton plants with 67% defoliation was double that of non-defoliated control plants. In non-defoliated cotton plants, a second flush of
flowering after release from water-stress permitted further compensatory fruit set and boll harvest. Defoliated plants did not show such levels of compensation.
Defoliation significantly reduced water use by maize and cotton. The relative yield advantage of defoliated plants under water-stress conditions can be attributed
to defoliation-induced improvement in water status as reflected in measures of photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance. Under anticipated drought stress,
defoliation could be an important management practice to reduce drought-induced yield decrease, but this needs to be tested under field conditions.
http://www.forages.ncsu.edu/Technica...scueTB_317.pdf
Research findings show that tall fescue pasture
yield and quality can be greatly improved through
proper defoliation practices and that endophyte-free
tall fescue cultivars can be no-till established into
infected pastures. Further, the experiments show that
with judicious planning and management, producers
can effectively use late summer-accumulated tall
fescue from October to March. These results have
applications wherever tall fescue is grown in North
Carolina and in other mid-Atlantic states.
These are for strawberries http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xm...dle/1957/25728
The number of trusses and flowers on control plants was significantly lower than on early-renovated plants (2 to 5 WAH). Date of renovation had no significant
effect on yield per plant in the summer of 1990 for all 3 cultivars individually. However, compared with the un-renovated control plants, the pooled yields of
'Benton', 'Totem', and 'Redcrest' showed a significant increase for early renovated plants (5 WAH or earlier). Compared with un-renovated plants, renovation
significantly increased berry size in 'Totem', and delayed the date of harvest in 'Totem' and 'Redcrest' but not in 'Benton'.
one more http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...31942298004440
However, growth of defoliated seedlings was considerably higher than that of nondefoliated ones.
Last one I could go on forever http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78429004000541
Analysis of physiological data collected in 1999 suggests that defoliation suppressed vegetative growth, optimized the ratio of AGDM at anthesis to that at final
harvest (0.5–0.8, peak 0.66) and led to more AGDM post-anthesis for maximal grain production. Defoliation that led to a yield increase also increased the leaf
area ratio and enhanced stomatal conductance and photosynthetic capacity at anthesis.
It is concluded that defoliation of early (April)-sown wheat defoliated at the middle to late tillering stage could let to greater yield and WUE, and would not
result in yield reduction. The value of foliage removed and overall economic and risk analyses are discussed in a further paper.
None of these plants are like pot that can photosynthesis from there fruit or create leaves on the fruit it is like nothing else. Fruit is usually separate from
leaf like apples.
Defoliation is just another pruning technique like topping, suppercroping, lollypoping or listing.
Topping a plant they go into shock and then develop branches faster then if the top was on.
Supercroping you crush the stem stopping food and water to the branch it goes into shock and stops growing until it heals then gains vigor.
Lollypoping defoliates and removes branches leaving large holes in the stem causing shock till the wounds heal and hormones transfer.
Listing shocks the plant forcing it to change the flow of hormones and stops growth until the hormone transfers and leaves reorientates up.
Defoliation removes large leaf forcing growth to the smaller leaves attached to branches making the branches develop much more replacing the leaf mass in three
days while keeping the top and creating more bud sites with closer nodes and denser branching.
Are any of these methods scientifically proven to work on pot all cause some shock I have never seen a side by side or proof
of any kind that these methods work other that peoples opinion but are not questioned much most try it for themselves. The vast majority of people who have
defoliated are happy with the results I bet a much higher % than the other methods which is why dozens of growers have defended the thread always
against people who have never tried it usually only a couple of haters at a time versus many more who have done it and produce increased numbers from previous grows.
The only people who argue are ones who admit to not trying it but believe the solar panel religion blindly even thou the leaves replace themselves in 3 days
I have read much more than most about this and can not find one person who put up numbers or pictures proving this didn't work only a rare post where it didn't
work for them or they did it wrong I have asked them what happened and they never give details
I have tried all the pruning methods over the years with the exception of supercroping to move a branch I don't care for any of the other methods none have been as good or as fast as defoliation a buddy showed me this years ago when I was part of the solar panel religion till I was converted we didn't do it exactly like the thread but did see results.
I want to investigate this to the fullest Including real side by sides with numbers for a valued test of timing and amounts with controls which will be started soon.
I thank you for reading this and I hope you look at it with an open mind it is a bit to read and much more to write.
this is week four a week after taking a shopping bag of leaf off you see they keep growing leaves no mater what you do they are over 4 feet high dense bushes. These were defoliated half a dozen times in veg I should have done it a couple of more times but did it again after stretch and now i'm going to do it again a couple of weeks before they are done. I still have too many leaves the light doesn't penetrate far with my 1000 watt less than a foot away the bottom buds that get light are doing good the ones higher up in the shade are losing leaves and have under developed buds it has too do with available light more than apical dominance.
Now we have folks trying to beef up their pro defoliation argument saying it decreases internodal length.
It does if you have ever done it once in veg you would see but you clearly haven't.
It's laughable. Hate to clue you in, but calyxes aka flowers do not require direct light to develop nor are they producers of food that the plant uses for tissue production. Now, if you want to strip them just to watch them regrow, knock yourself out.
They may grow in the shade but grow much better in light bioligy 101 you need light.
Since it's long been forgotten by all the noise on this issue, I'll repeat what a real professional, R.C. Clarke, who wrote THE book on cannabis botany and anatomy said. If you don't want to believe a bonafide professional as opposed to being drawn to a bunch of cannabis forum noobies who see what they want or expect to see, you go right on brother.
This is a excerpt on this never ending discussion that comes with every new crop of noobs that think they've discovered something kewl. The following excerpt is at least 15 years old for example.
R. C. Clarke author of Marijuana Botany: An Advanced Study, the Propagation and Breeding of Distinctive Cannabis states that there are 3 common beliefs:
1.) Large shade leaves draw energy from the flowering plant and by removing the large fan leaves surplus energy will be available and larger floral clusters will be formed,
2.) Some feel that the inhibitors of flowering , synthesized in the fan leaves during the long non-inductive days of summer, may be stored in the older leaves that were formed during the non-inductive photoperiod. Possibly, if these inhibitor-laden leaves are removed, the plant will proceed to flower more quickly when the shorter days of fall trigger flowering,
3.) Large fan leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small, atrophied, interior floral clusters may begin to develop if they receive more light.
Few, if any, of the theories behind "leafing" have any validity.
The large fan leaves have a definite function in the growth and development of cannabis. Large leaves serve as photosynthetic factories for the production of sugars and other necessary growth substances. They do create shade, but at the same time they are collecting valuable solar energy and producing foods that will be used during the floral development of the plant. Premature removal of the fan leaves may cause stunting because the potential for photosynthesis is reduced.
Most cannabis plants begin to lose their larger leaves when they enter the flowering stage and this trend continues on until senescence (death of the plant).
He also states that removing large amounts of fan leaves will also interfere with the metabolic balance of the plant. Leaf removal may also cause SEX REVERSAL resulting from a metabolic imbalance.
Prove it lets see the scientific study.
He goes on to say that cannabis grows largest when provided with plentiful nutrients, sunlight, and water, and left alone to grow and mature naturally. It must be remembered that any alteration of the natural life cycle of cannabis will affect productivity.
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
Very scientific. you did a great job of proving your point.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
BB, this is gonna come across as crass as I know you're proud of your garden, but, after reviewing your results, the facts speak for themselves. https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/602889-defoliation-question-anyone-familiar-12.html#post8487106
Based on what I'm seeing, I'd say this is either your first gardening experience or damn close to it. It's obvious that defoilation is working against you, not for you, as it should.
Here's a few shots of one my indoor gardens at different stages of development, grown naturally, 2002.
....and the results from a garden footprint of about 30 s.f. All but 2 of those baggies are 1 gal. and contain at least 4 oz. of bud.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Talk English, please.
Just for the record, I don't give a shit about Ethiopian mustard or cotton barely getting by under drought conditions. None of your cherry picked examples apply.
UB
jack's soil grow
Member
so I should have not train my plant from this
to this ( week in 6 flower)
so scrog will reduce your yeild, is that what you are saying and stop topping you plants you are lossing yeild
great point you have there
to this ( week in 6 flower)
so scrog will reduce your yeild, is that what you are saying and stop topping you plants you are lossing yeild
great point you have there
Bud Brewer
Well-Known Member
Yes it's fine looking bud but still smaller less dense plants then mine show me a 4 foot dense fat bush grown indoors better than mine.
That's a nice pile of bud from a 4x8 footprint with at least two lights you didn't break the two gram per watt probably not even one gram per watt so the point is you have grown some bud we have something in common.
I also believe in second harvests and keeping leaves green not overdosing P also no trimming branches. I only feed stuff I have made myself not just mixing bottled nutes it takes some knowledge to feed without a relying on a dosage on a bottle or ppm tester.
I have grown plenty of pounds over ten years so this in not my first plant just the first in years but I'm very happy with my walls of weed
Bud Brewer
Well-Known Member
He Is just frustrated that he gets proven wrong on a regular basis he does his own plant maniplulation but has no experience with this so he gets defensive seeing fine examples of defoliated bud.so I should have not train my plant from this
View attachment 2503195
to this ( week in 6 flower)
View attachment 2503194
so scrog will reduce your yeild, is that what you are saying and stop topping you plants you are lossing yeild
great point you have there
Having many different studys presented proving it is a valid method to increase production of many different plants should have people with a will to learn curious instead of dismissive because of a preconceived theory like the world is flat.
Izoc666
Well-Known Member
I spot the thai strain in the baggies ? its tough to grow those pure sativa with massive buds ! and very NICE nugs, love to smoke those excellent strain !
happy gardening.
akula
Active Member
He has already been informed, I doubt he will start listening now. I don't remember who, but someone even went through the time to break each study down and show what the hypothesis and conclusions of each one. These studies might as well have been done on rocks and dust of Mars and he would still find a sentence or two that seemed to fit his narrative. Knowing that nobody is actually going to take the time to read them is all the ammo needed to get everyone referring to them like gospel.
elkukupanda
Active Member
Yes, some claims here are so far frrom.. whatever.... if you people want to claim that you get shorter internodes because of leaf removal.. hate to break the bad news but all you doing is decreasing the photosynthetic rate.. might as well starve em.. or not water them... or the other many things that will take a plant from reaching it's maximum potential... as long there is no serious alteration within certain hormones.. internodes length should be fine the the way they are programmed to be..
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Gram/watt, another cannabis forum bunch of loose talk. There is no such credible measure considering a hundred factors are involved. Just more noobie fodder.
UB
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
ThaiTanic as marked from The Flying Dutchmen, a well respected breeder. They used one of my photos on their cover page. Think it was the one showing the cola below. This is one of the few seedbanks I would trust if I was to order beans again. For example, their O. Haze is about as true to form as real genetics get, not some mutt that folks attach the Haze buzzword to in order to make a sale. Their Haze is the real thing from Sam the Skunkman's collected genetics 30 or so years ago and is a pure sativa hybrid. No indica.
Also shown is some of the best pot I've ever grown and smoked. It was a cross I did between a fine male Peak19 (Sagamartha) and beautiful original C99 from the Bros. Grimm. It is photo #3 in the previous post and if memory serves me correct I got around 8 oz off that plant.
Been doing second harvests for many years. Here's some of the TT secondary harvest.
Happy gardening tambien!
- Status