Defoliation Test

HeartlandHank said:

^ That's interesting. I've got a handful of purple and pinks growing now (Sannies Killing Fields). I'll look for that. Just from memory, one of them does go a deep purple up top and not so much down low.

Click to expand...

The problem i had was that two plants grew where there was only room for one. When i spread them out finally tward the end of the grow the spots not getting light were all way greener than the purple tops. There was side light and the ones on the side were purple, so it has to be light specific, the fan leaves down there even stayed way greener.

HeartlandHank said:

I'm with UB on this... Your pics are nice, but I don't see how this is proof that buds need direct lighting to develop.

Click to expand...

Im with the OP on this one. I belive that the buds do need light to develop properly or at the same speed as ones reciving light.

The photos show no bud where the light is to week the last pic the middle branch could be cloned with no reveg surrounded by buds with bud down below in the light.

Uncle Ben said:

You don't know shit about botany, that's the real evidence and the fact that you keep posting the same series of photos in 4 threads like some compulsive nut doesn't make your point valid.

I'll explain a little botany to ya'll - leaves are the plant's unit that produces sugar's and other products for plant cell tissue production and elongation whether it is finally channeled to roots, stems, more leaves, or fruiting bodies. Phloem and xylem are the circulatory conduits which carries cell building byproducts of photosynthesis to all plant parts including flowers, actually it's the phloem that carries those products (glucose), the xylem conduits water and elements into the chloroplasts located in the fan leaves for sugar production. If you want to remove those efficient solar collectors, fine, but don't sit here and try to convince someone with 40 years of horticulture experience that you know botany.

With a few lights and other stuff even a monkey can throw together an indoor garden and grow this weed.

UB

Click to expand...

After defoliating the leaves grow back. I dont believe hes talking about removing the leaves forever. Theyll come back and biger than ever.

HeartlandHank said:

I'm with UB on this... Your pics are nice, but I don't see how this is proof that buds need direct lighting to develop.

Click to expand...

I have proof here, these are one of the plants i mentioned earlier, not a purple strain, actually TW, but it has purpled nicely. It was netted and kinda stuck where it was so only the top was getting light. If you look closely you can see the green lower buds. Not as nicely developed as the rest. When i separated the two plants by cutting the net out it was clear that the lack of light was effecting the development.

Ninjabowler said:

Im with the OP on this one. I belive that the buds do need light to develop properly or at the same speed as ones reciving light.

Click to expand...

That's a feeling, not a fact. But strong feelings are hard to give up, just ask some one struggling with an impending divorce who knows in their head they need to get out but in their heart they want to stay. It's human nature, you'll see a lot of psychological dynamics at play in cannabis forums.

As I've explained previously I've grown outdoors as much as indoors and its been my experience that lower buds do not usually develop like the fat colas at the top. Not because they don't get plenty of light which they do, but because of the influence of apical dominance, NOT LIGHT LEVELS. A seasoned gardener, one who has grown all kinds of plant material for at least 10 years, understands this, while an inexperienced gardener doesn't thru no fault of their own. It's all about plant resources including water and nutes uptake. The upper part of the plant gets most of the goodies just as nature intended it to be. Why do you think the lower fan leaves yellow and die off when you deprive your plants of sufficient N, especially during the flowering response? That's right, because the plant will sacrifice metabolites found at those lower levels in the plant tissue, N is one, to nourish the upper parts of the plant. N is a mobile element.

Which takes me to the lame practice of lollipopping. 99% of those practicing it can't retain leaves at lower levels so they do the "sour grapes" drill. I do retain lower leaves and as an example, I'll post photos of very crowded plants which are flowering very nicely at lower levels, in spite of the "shade". Look at the flowering response on the first plant. These are large plants, as I do SOB type growing (sea of bush).



Uncle Ben

Wrong when you have a dense plant the light not apical dominance develops bud. You see the bud in the top right corner it is well developed it is the lowest branch at the very bottom in the last photo in the middle a foot higher with no light no bud.

Both those plants are getting light and don't have the density to shade anything they don't need lots of light but they don't develop in the dark interior.

Uncle Ben said:

That's a feeling, not a fact. But strong feelings are hard to give up, just ask some one struggling with an impending divorce who knows in their head they need to get out but in their heart they want to stay. It's human nature, you'll see a lot of psychological dynamics at play in cannabis forums.

As I've explained previously I've grown outdoors as much as indoors and its been my experience that lower buds do not usually develop like the fat colas at the top. Not because they don't get plenty of light which they do, but because of the influence of apical dominance, NOT LIGHT LEVELS. A seasoned gardener, one who has grown all kinds of plant material for at least 10 years, understands this, while an inexperienced gardener doesn't thru no fault of their own. It's all about plant resources including water and nutes uptake. The upper part of the plant gets most of the goodies just as nature intended it to be. Why do you think the lower fan leaves yellow and die off when you deprive your plants of sufficient N, especially during the flowering response? That's right, because the plant will sacrifice metabolites found at those lower levels in the plant tissue, N is one, to nourish the upper parts of the plant. N is a mobile element.

Which takes me to the lame practice of lollipopping. 99% of those practicing it can't retain leaves at lower levels so they do the "sour grapes" drill. I do retain lower leaves and as an example, I'll post photos of very crowded plants which are flowering very nicely at lower levels, in spite of the "shade". Look at the flowering response on the first plant. These are large plants, as I do SOB type growing (sea of bush).

View attachment 2524684 View attachment 2524685

Uncle Ben

Click to expand...

No, its a fact. These pictures are not made up, theyre real.
Actually the largest buds on this plant are 3/4 of the way up and the purple plant had the largest buds at the bottom. No kidding. If the light isnt touching them they stay green, dont purple at the same speed, and are less dense. I can show you more in depth pics if youd like but im certain that light develops the buds faster and more dense

Bud Brewer said:

Wrong when you have a dense plant the light not apical dominance develops bud.

Click to expand...

You can hang a sign on a pig and call it a dog all you want. You wouldn't know hormonal responses and plant life cycles if they bit you in the ass. You do not know botany, you parrot the same newbie false paradigms.

Don't you have some plants to flush? What, can't find the spigot? Keep looking or do you need some kid with 20 posts to find it for you?

And before someone asks me again, no I don't flush. It's a myth, a false forum paradigm that gets resurrected and parroted with every new crop of noobs.

UB

Ninjabowler said:

No, its a fact. These pictures are not made up, theyre real.

Click to expand...

And so is the first photo previously posted. How do you explain that large mass of buds at the bottom levels of the plant, shaded by fan leaves? You do see the incredible amount of large fan leaves? Again, we see what we want to see but that plant speaks for itself.

I'm sorry you didn't get squat at the bottom. I always do double harvests to bulk up those lower levels a bit. Makes a big difference and not necessarily what I know you and the turbo posting photographer are gonna parrot - "buds need light to develop". When you cut out the bulked up colas, auxins are redistributed and now the lower part of the plant which had previously been regressive becomes dominant, able to enjoy all the plant's resources which includes a well developed and efficient root system.

It's all about botany people. Get ya sum -

UB

Uncle Ben said:

And so is the first photo previously posted. How do you explain that large mass of buds at the bottom levels of the plant, shaded by fan leaves? You do see the incredible amount of large fan leaves? Again, we see what we want to see but that plant speaks for itself.

UB

Click to expand...

Ben the leaves will not remain off, they are just defoliated to make them grow back stronger. Thats what the test is going to show. Leaves removed in veg will grow back more dense than if the plant were let grow naturally. My plant had large amounts of buds in shaded areas as well, they just werent as good as the lit buds

Ben i thought of an expirement. Grow a nice trophy bud plant, you make nice ones all the time im sure. Then cover the trophy bud up........shade it. See what happens. If your theroy is correct then it should ripen, color, and harden, just like all the others and at the same speed. I doubt that it will but you could test it.

Ninjabowler said:

Ben i thought of an expirement. Grow a nice trophy bud plant, you make nice ones all the time im sure. Then cover the trophy bud up........shade it. See what happens. If your theroy is correct then it should ripen, color, and harden, just like all the others and at the same speed. I doubt that it will but you could test it.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. I don't know about your colas but mine are full of fan leaves, large and small, witness the posted pix. And if you're an observant gardener, you see the ultra long fan leaf petioles. Betcha you can't guess why they've evolved over time to stick way out from the plant?

It seems to me that you think a flower is a glucose producing factory. Is that correct? Why else would you think that flowers need light to develop? This is not Troll-it-Up theory play time, I'm talkin' science here.

UB

No i think thats in the leaves but what the test would prove is that what you said, that apical dominance not direct light is responsible for development is not entirely true. I dont know, you may be right but thats how you could test it. In my limited expirience the buds that got light did way better than the ones in the shade, regardless of hight on the plant. The side lower buds were getting light from another 600 and they changed to purple and were more dense.

Ninjabowler said:

No i think thats in the leaves but what the test would prove is that what you said, that apical dominance not direct light is responsible for development is not entirely true. I dont know, you may be right but thats how you could test it. In my limited expirience the buds that got light did way better than the ones in the shade, regardless of hight on the plant. The side lower buds were getting light from another 600 and they changed to purple and were more dense.

Click to expand...

You dodged my question.

OK, let's put it this way. The total units of glucose produced by all leaves contributes to production of plant tissue, and that includes calyx's.

You don't understand this apical dominance thing because you are not a seasoned gardener, and I don't just mean pot.

The fact that your plants showed purple anthocynanins (which masks chlorophyll) is usually a result of genetics and low temperatures, not light.

UB

Your right, im a newb, im on my first plants. I read alot and ive helped alot of folks along the way. If your right about apical dominance vs. light then i dont see where the test wouldnt work in your favor, but like i said i dont think it will.
And youve edited your post/question twice already so of course i dodged it, it wasnt there before lol this is a reserch thread, not a pissing match.

Uncle Ben said:

You dodged my question.

OK, let's put it this way. The total units of glucose produced by all leaves contributes to production of plant tissue, and that includes calyx's.

You don't understand this apical dominance thing because you are not a seasoned gardener, and I don't just mean pot.

The fact that your plants showed purple anthocynanins (which masks chlorophyll) is usually a result of genetics and low temperatures, not light.

UB

Click to expand...

If this is true then cover a side bud and see the results compared to other side buds.

Ninjabowler said:

The problem i had was that two plants grew where there was only room for one. When i spread them out finally tward the end of the grow the spots not getting light were all way greener than the purple tops. There was side light and the ones on the side were purple, so it has to be light specific, the fan leaves down there even stayed way greener.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thinking on it more.. my sweet tooth plants used to blue/purple a little bit and it was exclusively at the tops.

Bud Brewer said:

The photos show no bud where the light is to week the last pic the middle branch could be cloned with no reveg surrounded by buds with bud down below in the light.

Click to expand...

So then is this area an area that you did not defol enough? If defol was the answer to this problem then why is it on your defol'd plant?

this is pretty common when you alter your plant to the point of having an unnatural number of bud sites..
This I can speak on with much confidence... I am a genetic nerd and know what each of my plants produce... I've said this 20 times, but it so true...
You can get 4 10 gram buds 8 5 gram buds 16 2.5 gram buds or 32 .75 gram buds... the plant just does what it does. Obviously, root mass, container size, air quality, nutes, light levels effect... So say those aspects are met with adequate/consistent conditions... Your plant yields the same..
You can reach a point where you have so many sites that your plant won't even produce on all of them... Like most things with these plants (from what I see) the lower growth sacrifices first.

I've done much looking into this area.... fueled by hours spent at a trim table asking myself "how do I get the same amount of weight without all of this bullshit fluffy stuff to trim?"
The answer was less bud sites. I get the same weight every time. This is assuming my canopy is full. Not full with many many small buds, but full with many large buds. (Less budsites) I get the same weight with the larger but spend many less hours at the table.

I'm not saying you are absolutely wrong.... but... HAVE you tried these genetics without a defol? Or with less budsites?
Perhaps there is an element to my gardening style that is making this happen, but the more smaller buds/less larger buds/same weight thing has been showing itself to be true time and time again.

The factor that really increases yield ime is the proper spacing under the light which is dictated by how the plant likes to grow/branch. The more altering you do to the plant, the more bud sites.. That I will agree with you on... I just don't find it to be a good thing. If I was growing just a couple plants and yield was increased say 20%, then I might go for it. The thing is that I'm not seeing any increase at all as I am already filling my canopy up well with fewer bud sites that are developing larger flowers.