You are completely wrong Rickwhite... and when I grow plants with horizontal lighting i see a LOT of shade in the middle of the plant, the only part of the plant that gets lighting is the top and a small part of the outside as the plant gets wider, the inside growth gets NO direct lighting because it is shaded by the leaves above it. Stop making foolish arguments about partial lighting because we're looking at vertical pictures and those plants look full of growth to me. In fact they look saturated with more light than many horizontal grows I've seen. You can't say they catch no light but also are all in shade, where does the light go? You can't have your argument one way and then the other, either they use a bunch of light and other parts are in the shade, or the plant catches no light and the entire plant is being lit. Light doesn't just disappear magically before it reaches other parts of a plant. Regardless of whatever fact less and erroneous proof you try to bring up, it doesn't escape the fact that VERTICAL PLANTS RECEIVE MORE LIGHTING. If you're so intent on not having "wasted growth" then trim the back side of the plant as it grows just like you would trim the undergrowth of a plant canopy of a horizontal grow that is IN THE SHADE. You're a fool if you think that a normal plant doesn't shade itself.
You keep making the point that if you look at a plant in a vertical setup then the leaves on the other side of the light are in the shade, well guess what? If you look at the damn bottom of a plant in a horizontal setup that has leaves above it then it is receiving no light either. The only reason you make the foolish assumption that a normally grown plant is receiving 100% light is because you're ignoring the inside and bottom of the plant that is completely shaded.
Vertical lighting is the exact same as turning a regular plant on its side under a horizontal (lst). The only difference is rather than turning the plant to the side, you turn the light to the side. The plant is still being lit from the side in both cases. If anything, vertical growing is better because you do not have to consistently train the plant.
Are you saying a plant that has been LST grows worse than a normal plant? Weird, wonder why people do it then. Perhaps, when you LST your plant receives more lighting because it is growing perpendicular to the light? What do you know... it does. One of the advantages with vertical is that rather than bending the plant so that growth is outward, the plant automatically grows outward(in relation to the light). I have NEVER seen an LST plant where someone complained about only 1/2 the plant being lit, and if they did all they had to do was trim the undergrowth. I have definitely seen many complains about "naturally grown" plants shading their lower growth and forming almost no buds at the bottom. If you want to make a point based on ignorance, then trim the damn part of the plant facing away from the light and stop complaining about the "inefficiency" of vertical growing which has proven to be more effective at lighting a plant. Just because you may not LST, Scrog, Supercrop, or Fim YOUR plants doesn't mean they don't work far better than a normally grown plant for increasing plant growth. Natural isn't always better.
Your points are nothing but hypocritical, factless, and purely ignorant of established growing techniques. Now, stop coming up with more foolish points that have to be proven wrong.
?? No way man, you've NEVER seen half a plant dead and wasted because of vertical growing. NEVER.
