Anybody Want To Double Their Yield?- Desertrat's Top and Prune?

1badmasonman

1badmasonman

Well-Known Member
Again very interesting points made on all sides. With all due respect, i have to side with UB on this one. Im a firm believer in fan leaves. UB noted that apples ripen on trees and they are not always in direct sunlight. This is TRUE. Same holds true with cannabis. Its flowers are not a direct result of how much light the bud site gets. Rather as mentioned the god given functional sytem of fan leaves to sugar leaves in all forms or fashions, removal does not = Double yield. Period. And I would have to respectfully agree with UB about the gimmick factor of the thread title. DOUBLE YOUR YEILD. Its a ruse to get noobs in the mix.

So as we seem to be having a peacful debate going. Wheres the doubled yeild proof? I just dont see how topping VS selective pruning is going to "DOUBLE" my yeild.

With repects to both men. Botany is the bible of floral proess. Many people know this and im no dif. Experimenting is fun and i do myself aswell, BUT i dont fool with manipulating what nature has found to be protocol. I do top my plants, some i let grow natural. Topping can happen naturaly in nature. And its like UB said a hormonal balance and removing a food source for fruit development just dont compute.

However im in to see what happens here. Not bashing just watching. Respectfully with an open mind. But i feel asthough reinventing what mother nature has perfected is not going to DOUBLE MY YEILD. Peace 1BMM..
 
medicalmary

medicalmary

Active Member
Let me preface this question by stating I have not completed a cannabis grow yet. So, have we established that actual light reaching a bud site does not impact bud development? I'm wondering, because I would like to avoid airy popcorn bud on the lower parts of my plants. I'm not into fan leaf pruning, but would it be unreasonable to remove sucker tops that have very little chance of reaching the canopy of indoor grow environments?

I'm approaching this not really scientifically, but more through rational thought. For example, when the first frost is in sight I remove undeveloped flower sights from my tomato plants in order to focus the plants productive power on the already more developed fruit.

So, if I remove these suckers, could it be beneficial to the other bud sights and therefore produce more premium flowers?

mm
 
riddleme

riddleme

Well-Known Member
medicalmary said:
Let me preface this question by stating I have not completed a cannabis grow yet. So, have we established that actual light reaching a bud site does not impact bud development? I'm wondering, because I would like to avoid airy popcorn bud on the lower parts of my plants. I'm not into fan leaf pruning, but would it be unreasonable to remove sucker tops that have very little chance of reaching the canopy of indoor grow environments?

I'm approaching this not really scientifically, but more through rational thought. For example, when the first frost is in sight I remove undeveloped flower sights from my tomato plants in order to focus the plants productive power on the already more developed fruit.

So, if I remove these suckers, could it be beneficial to the other bud sights and therefore produce more premium flowers?

mm
Click to expand...
some will say yes and some will say no,,,,my answer would be no
 
genuity

genuity

Well-Known Member
medicalmary said:
Let me preface this question by stating I have not completed a cannabis grow yet. So, have we established that actual light reaching a bud site does not impact bud development? I'm wondering, because I would like to avoid airy popcorn bud on the lower parts of my plants. I'm not into fan leaf pruning, but would it be unreasonable to remove sucker tops that have very little chance of reaching the canopy of indoor grow environments?

I'm approaching this not really scientifically, but more through rational thought. For example, when the first frost is in sight I remove undeveloped flower sights from my tomato plants in order to focus the plants productive power on the already more developed fruit.

So, if I remove these suckers, could it be beneficial to the other bud sights and therefore produce more premium flowers?

mm
Click to expand...
yes....take off the suckers,keep the fan leaves on.
 
corvetteguy

corvetteguy

Well-Known Member
I am a noob here and in "NO" way should I be taken seriously. But it seems like everyone here is overlooking the obvious (I mean no offense to anyone). While I agree with everyone that more leaves do infact equal more bud. No one here seems to notice that given time to properly recover the topped/prunned plants seem to have more foliage going into flower than the unpruned plants do (or am I wrong)? And it seems to me to me that if (say for example:) removing 5 or 6 leaves allows 20 or 30 new leaves to grow, while at the same time moving more bud sites closer to the light, that this would be a good thing. So if I am correct here what rat has accomplished isn't meerly having moved more of his bud sites closer to his light, he has infact created MORE foliage therefore increased the rate of photosyinthis in his plant. And it seems that everyone here agrees unanimously that more foliage is a GOOD thing. Like I have already stated I AM A NOOB so please don't take me seriously, this is just somthing to think about and nothing more. I hope that I didn't offend anyone as I meant no offense. And I would like to take this opportunity to say that this site is AWESOME, and packed full of usefull info.I do appologise for the bad grammer,it never was my strong suit. And RAT I would like to thank you for taking the time to share your experiment, you and people like you are the reason that this site is the BEST.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
corvetteguy said:
While I agree with everyone that more leaves do infact equal more bud. No one here seems to notice that given time to properly recover the topped/prunned plants seem to have more foliage going into flower than the unpruned plants do (or am I wrong)?
Click to expand...
Read the thread. I already addressed that, on the previous page.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
Read the thread. I already addressed that, on the previous page.
Click to expand...
You are a riot... You have a whole 250 page thread dedicated to YOUR method... Your WHOLE method involves cutting parts off plants and yet you are bashing another grower for doing the same thing.

IF, it results in leaf mass replacement equal to or greater than the initial removal. It's all in the balance.
Click to expand...
UB, have you somehow proven definitively that DR's pruning method does not achieve this goal?
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
corvetteguy said:
I am a noob here and in "NO" way should I be taken seriously. But it seems like everyone here is overlooking the obvious (I mean no offense to anyone). While I agree with everyone that more leaves do infact equal more bud. No one here seems to notice that given time to properly recover the topped/prunned plants seem to have more foliage going into flower than the unpruned plants do (or am I wrong)? And it seems to me to me that if (say for example:) removing 5 or 6 leaves allows 20 or 30 new leaves to grow, while at the same time moving more bud sites closer to the light, that this would be a good thing. So if I am correct here what rat has accomplished isn't meerly having moved more of his bud sites closer to his light, he has infact created MORE foliage therefore increased the rate of photosyinthis in his plant. And it seems that everyone here agrees unanimously that more foliage is a GOOD thing. Like I have already stated I AM A NOOB so please don't take me seriously, this is just somthing to think about and nothing more. I hope that I didn't offend anyone as I meant no offense. And I would like to take this opportunity to say that this site is AWESOME, and packed full of usefull info.I do appologise for the bad grammer,it never was my strong suit. And RAT I would like to thank you for taking the time to share your experiment, you and people like you are the reason that this site is the BEST.
Click to expand...
Great to have your input-- it makes me especially glad that the conversation here has remained civil. I think that several of the posters here would respond that leaf removal reduces the plant's ability to produce the energy necessary to create the vegitation closer to the light; and that less leaf = less plant energy-- period. At the moment, I'm in the other camp, but I don't know what the truth is yet-- that's why this experiment is so compelling.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Nitegazer said:
Great to have your input-- it makes me especially glad that the conversation here has remained civil. I think that several of the posters here would respond that leaf removal reduces the plant's ability to produce the energy necessary to create the vegitation closer to the light; and that less leaf = less plant energy-- period. At the moment, I'm in the other camp, but I don't know what the truth is yet-- that's why this experiment is so compelling.
Click to expand...
The problem with the argument about less leaf = less plant energy is the fact that it does not incorporate time into the equation.

There is no limit to vegetation on a normal strain. So, unless you are trying to break a speed record like Prof MJ or you are trying to up your commercial #'s by reducing the time of your crops then the argument is pretty pointless. Less energy = longer veg = more vegetation = more energy, it simply takes time to balance the equation.

The more the entrenched people state dogma about what is and what is not fact in the MJ growing world the more I want to try this experiment myself.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
The problem with the argument about less leaf = less plant energy is the fact that it does not incorporate time into the equation.

There is no limit to vegetation on a normal strain.
Click to expand...
Tell that to a guy that's 6 weeks into flowering who's lost most of his fan leaves due to improper culture. Cannabis is an annual, it is a "determinate" plant with a finite amount of foliage upon maturity and a finite life unlike an indeterminate tomato.

So, unless you are trying to break a speed record like Prof MJ or you are trying to up your commercial #'s by reducing the time of your crops then the argument is pretty pointless. Less energy = longer veg = more vegetation = more energy, it simply takes time to balance the equation.
Click to expand...
The time element is genetically determined, all things considered. Has nothing to do with leaf mass.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
The time element is genetically determined, all things considered. Has nothing to do with leaf mass.
Click to expand...
The time element I am referring to is the time in the vegetative state. Unless you are using an auto-flower strain I believe you can veg the plant for years if you choose to do so.
 
Weedoozie

Weedoozie

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
The time element I am referring to is the time in the vegetative state. Unless you are using an auto-flower strain I believe you can veg the plant for years if you choose to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes you can! I've seen cannabis TREES with my own two eyes in Humboldt county, some of them look to be almost 20 feet tall. I didn't even realize they were cannabis plants until my friend who lives there was showing me around and told me to pay particular attention to these trees because they are gorgeous, huge, and a lot of time, energy, and love has gone into keeping them alive. Clones are taken from these mother trees and seriously, they are the most amazing trees I've ever seen.
 
Cissy

Cissy

Active Member
Uncle Ben/Brick Top

What do you two Gentlemen think of "lollipopping"? Is that a bad idea as well? Does cutting off the bottom 1/3, which never gets any light anyway, really force the plant to redirect its energy to the top cola's or is it a waste? Any science behind it one way or the other? Pros/cons?

The little buds on the bottom usually suck anyway, so I recently started to cut them off. Not so sure that it has made a difference with the top cola's though. Guess I'd rather have the little popcorn on the bottom if all things up top are equal either way, but if it in any way helps the top cola's, then I am all for chopping them off.

I really respect both of you and would love to hear your thoughts on this.

ty
 
DaveCoulier

DaveCoulier

Well-Known Member
Cissy said:
Uncle Ben/Brick Top

What do you two Gentlemen think of "lollipopping"? Is that a bad idea as well? Does cutting off the bottom 1/3, which never gets any light anyway, really force the plant to redirect its energy to the top cola's or is it a waste? Any science behind it one way or the other? Pros/cons?

The little buds on the bottom usually suck anyway, so I recently started to cut them off. Not so sure that it has made a difference with the top cola's though. Guess I'd rather have the little popcorn on the bottom if all things up top are equal either way, but if it in any way helps the top cola's, then I am all for chopping them off.

I really respect both of you and would love to hear your thoughts on this.

ty
Click to expand...
There is already a lollipopping thread where UB and BT have made their thoughts known. BrickTop has a great ditty in there that pretty much body slams lollipopping proponents. I think he even does a leg drop on them while they're down too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top