"LST is more effective" - great. You're not stating how at what it is effective in accomplishing for one. Second you're providing anecdotes about your experience and providing zero data. Third, your providing hearsay about anecdotes about growers how find LST to be "more effective" even though you're not stating what it was more effective in accomplishing, nor do you state the conditions under which the "tests" were carried out, etc, etc.
Topping is a well established mechanism for controlling the shape of a plant. It requires, essentially, no labor and has no proven detriment to the plant.
If you've got data, post it. If not, thanks for sharing.
I'm not cool enough for "bro".
"It makes sense" - to you but you do nothing to buttress your argument. You state obvious facts but don't state how that impacts the plant.
"Autos are on a clock, and you are diverting energy to healing when you top. "
Yes, we know autos are on the clock.
What amount of energy is required? Document the change in growth. How many dozens of plants have you tested? What were the conditions? What strains did you test? When will you publish your findings?
Lacking answers to those questions, you haven't proven your case so there's no reason to accept your conclusions.
Since you're into anecdotes, check out some of the grow journals on auto flower.net and you'll find that the "you can't top autos" argument is long over. Perhaps some time on that site would provide a different perspective on growing autos.
For myself, I see topping as a form of "high stress training" that I use to shape my plants. I accept the fact that I could be reducing yield but I don't believe that to be the case because I haven't read a convincing argument and because I routinely get well over a pound from the one plant that I grow in my little 2' x 4' tent.
So is topping harming my autos? Could be but I'm getting incredible growth and I routinely yield about 50% above the yield targets from seed sellers. I'm eager to improve my grows…bring data next time.
What does "data" look like…rather than an anecodote and hearsay?
I've attached a couple of papers that present the details of their research and that I have used to make decisions about my growing processes.
A good example. From the Frontiers paper, I've derived this table:
Based on the Frontiers paper, yield increased by the above stated percentages when PPFD was changed. Those are data upon which a fact based decision can be made.
I used that source, as well as many others, and I now get my plants to the light saturation point as soon as possible.
You assert that it's better to LST than top - you're the only person making that argument, BTW - and the best you've got is a story about > 1 grow that you did + you're recounting a podcast that you heard. Sure, you feel strongly about it and you've found a couple of podcasts that agree with you. Big deal. No data, no pictures, no proof…no joy.
Another research paper, this one by Bugbee, indicates that, as the percentage of blue photons increases over 4%, crop yield decreases. At 20% blue, yield is off 12%, IIRC.
[time passes]
Attached the paper. Yield was down 12.3% when blue was 20% during flower.
That's data that I can use and it is data that I used to change my grow processes. Based on this data available in that paper and from other sources, I decided to retire my Mars SP 3000 after a couple of grows and I switched to Growcraft lights, a dedicated veg light and a dedicated flower light.
Did it increase my yield? I do not know because I didn't run a controlled experiment to determine that. I strongly suspect that it did but, again, without a controlled experiment, the only sure statement that I can make is "that assertion is not proven".
I'm not doubting your observations, I understand the impact that confirmation bias has on us (that's what it's called when we glom on to a source that agrees with what we believe), and your appeal to authority is noted ("2 growers who have grown thousands of plants…). And it's specifically because of those biases that your argument is unconvincing.
RE. "LST is more effective" - that's a topic for another discussion. Someone will ask "more effective than what", "under what conditions", what outcomes were you string to maximize", etc. That info deserves attention. Basing arguments on "because this is how it worked out when I tried it out" is not very persuasive.
Last edited:
