But if you're lighter you can move faster, right? Right? Guys?
too-fucking-chea
OMG Thank you. Listen guy I'm not doubting your "botany experience" and "years of experience growing marijuana" but science changes over time, paradigms shift, and this is hardly a paradigm lol....so if you haven't had the experience where you pruned your plants and they all died, then I don't get what you can be advocating so strongly?
Amen.
In a perfect world you would be correct but with a crowded indoor grow the benifits outweigh the negatives. More light and more air circulating. Stick 4 plants or heck even 2 plants in a SQ foot and watch what happens in the first few weeks of bloom. Will answer all your questions.
I am NOT going to get into the what is best part but I do have a question. In regards to this subject what actual real true science has changed? What horticulturalists with PhDs researching where on what plants have discovered that was previously known to be a fact turned out to be incorrect and what actual real true scientific fact or facts in regards to this subject have actually changed?
I'm in my 30's, and I remember talking about gibberilins in biology. My teacher didn't want to give me any more info once she saw my eyes light up when she told us how much of an increase in growth rate you could achieve using this "magic hormone". The good old days.
Not that it really matters or pertains to the subject but since you mentioned it, there were initial discoveries and isolation of gibberellins in the 1930s but there was difficulty in isolating pure material, and confusing identifications. Later they were isolated and fully understood in the 1950s in the United States.
I agree with you. Most of the time it wont be needed. It is only needed when you are pushing your grow to the absolute max. I went from 4 per sq foot to two to make life easier. My yields are consistantly a good bit lower but I trim plants a lot less and have half as many plants to deal with. If you want to start getting over gram per watt on a typical table you dont have much choice. I am happy with 1.2-1.3 but 1.9 was amazing for no CO2. If I had a single table I'd still do 4 per foot. No veg time on the table its always in bloom which means insane numbers anually off a single table are possible. Its all a matter of what your goals are. If you are happy with your results dont bother changing a thing. If you feel you can do better and see others attaining better results , it will pay off in spades to read and listen to those that are actually accomplishing this, not those that are stuck in their ways with lesser results. Was simple to me, of course I am a logical practical person. I saw what my grow was doing and started reading about people doing much more. Either they were flat out lying for god knows what reason or they were doing something scientifically supperior t achieve these results. It intrigued me so I started mirroring their grows and voila, I started getting those same results myself ! No mystery no magic no bending of scientific botanical facts required. Simply using what you have to your best ability. Saved me literally years of trial and error and I still would have never achieved these results on my own.
I'll second that you know what you are doing but you and a few others always seem to think there is only one way to grow more or less. Just like cars and people there is always someone faster and tougher out there no matter who you are. You seem so blinded by science that you cant see how it is needed with certain grows to maximize yield, if you are pushing hard. SCROG and Lollipping to name a few. 2-4 plants per SQ foot will achieve the best yields on a given space then growing lower numbers but only IF you remove leaves to let air and light in. Want 1/2 gram per watt fine stick 4 per foot and dont remove anything and see a lesser yield then going with one plant per foot. Stick 2 plants and no removal and see better results, maybe .7 grams per watt or even 1 if it is going perfectly. Want over 1 per watt and especially 1.5+ per watt with or without CO2 and you will have to be vertical or doing 2-4 per foot and removing leaves. 1.9 with no CO2 is no joke and I have yet to see many achieve this even with CO2 without being vertical. Was only possible by going with 4 per foot and maor leaf removal. The benifits outweigh the negatives. Same sized plants grown with no leaf removal will for a fact yield better by them selves WITHOUT removing leaves no one is arguing this. The Botanical scientific facts have not changed. It is only when you crowd the plants together that it becomes benificial and neccesary for the highest yields for your given space. Scientific botanical facts are for a FACT NOT taking this into account nor the fact we are all groing under a stationary light source.
I am not going to get into the facts versus the myths part of it because I have been down that road far too many times already and know that the side of ignorance always argues until it believes it overcomes facts.
The Beavis and Buttheads are the growers with no true education in plants, who never took a single botanical/horticultural course, who never took the time or put out the effort to research it on their own and by doing so learning true proven facts and who instead reject every fact they are told in favor of beliefs and opinions and myths and urban legends and misconceptions and half-truths and inaccuracies and old hippie folklore.
Do you realize how silly this makes you sound?
.
)
Well, the horticultural "education" debate can go both ways, though I generally agree with you. It wasn't all that long ago that people were taught that flies came from meat, and the earth was flat, there is a fountain of youth...
First you start calling names to anyone that doesn't think like you,, and then you get that hollier than thou thing going.
Any idea how often science reputes their own findings? How often several scientist think differently on the same subject matter?
Things like fire were used for centuries by the cause & effect types looooong before science got a grip on why and what really happens.
Cause & effect again was in the forefront when someone considered that plants may like music.
Cause & effect got the Wright Bros. off the ground by trying foolish experiments before science caught on and figured out why.
I'll bet Auto Flowers and Feminized were brought to be the same way too. Perhaps the folks had all that book knowledge to call on,, perhaps not. But either way they had to try it before it was proven to work. Unfortunately, neither are 100% fail save at this time. But they willbe because people will experiment on their own and try to find a more stable solution through cause & effect.
People thinking outside the box and not being affraid to try something new has gotten us everything! It's put man on the moon, sea farming, gasoline engines, dishwashing machines, indoor plumbing, central air conditioning, and home computers just to mention a very, very few.
Now, I need to ask, Why do you get your panties in a bunch when someone says try it and learn from it? Are you that affraid that someone may discover that something works well for them with their own method or style? (and contradictory to your beliefs)
I'm simply not going to follow your lead simply because you've read something and I've actually tried it and find that sometimes it can be a usefull tool in my bag of tricks for my growing.
I respect your opinion on knowledge through schooling & research is good. A good foundation that is. But to stagnate people into mechanical growing is not very helpful to people that may have conditions that warrent some experimentations.
But I do not repect the way your postings seem to always include ridicule,, name calling,, and stagnation of imagination / experimentation.
This has been a mostly friendly exchange of ideas up to this point on the most part. However, again your just pouring gasoline on a fire and trying to start crap with your post.
Is there any way you can find a way to communicate without being abrasive? When the name calling begins, I'm out of here,,,, see ya! Exchanging ideas and thoughts really don't inclide ridicule in a more helpful setting / conversation.
As mentioned,
I have no need to
Have a nice day.
PS; Something to think about, Viagra. Do you know this came about by Scientist trying to find medicine for heart disease? I can only imagine how they found out it would give the guys hours long woodies. (bet it was cause & effect trials
)
