Lollipopping
- Thread starter Fred Flintstoner
- Start date
greenearth5
Well-Known Member
im an auto grower and i did loose some weight from lollipoping... but i dont know about lollipoping reg seeds
greenearth5
Well-Known Member
yah each top cola bud that i harvested weighted apx an ounce wet apiece.... thats stem bud and all is included in the top cola... remember Im doing a double harvest and i still have the bottom half of the plant to harvest in a few weeks.... I dont know what my exact weight will be but im figureing 10grams for the first plant which i lollipoped (mistake).. it was a single harvest since there was only one bud growing, although the bud was huge... it weighted an ounce wet... the second and third plant is going to be harvested 2 times....
diddystyles72
Well-Known Member
how do you harvest twice just trim the buds when they are ready and leave the small one to get bigger?
greenearth5
Well-Known Member
excatly! I harvested only the main cola and left ALL the rest (bottom half) in my grow room to grow bigger and probably will harvest in another 2 weeks.... i dont switch back to veg... i just leave it in flowering
Fred Flintstoner
Active Member
Wow. Came back to this thread after a few days and noticed it really took off. I started this thread to get some debate and discussion going on how beneficial, if any, lollipopping is for people. Unfortunately calling people noobs and bashing on other's plants is also what I didnt have in mind. I will never claim to be an expert on growing weed or botany because my knowledge in life goes mainly towards info security, not plant growing. I have no care to reach an elite status either, and I hope the idea of just helping each other out is more important for most in the forum than egos and who is right and who has the largest wang.
I have also spoken with UncleBen off the thread and he speaks from experience and makes a lot of good points....just maybe needs to learn a little bit of tact in order to get other people to listen a bit better
I believe in the end everyone has their own grow circumstances, which means their own obstacles, environment, and any other factor that makes the grow itself unique. I don't just try something because it sounds cool, and this method was no different. Below are some reasons for me even finding out about this method.
Factors for me trying lollipopping:
1) In my flower room the space is 2 ft deep by 5 ft wide which does not give a lot of room to grow and it can get crowded.
2) By the time the plants are 6 -7 weeks old, the lower leaves can no longer receive adequate light.
3) Low branches left intact produce tiny small buds barely worth time to trim
4) Air flow is needed underneath plants in my small space
5) Need all light to be used on top canopy of buds to avoid weak lower light issue
Used this method on 2/3 white widows with results:
1) The 2 Lollipopped WWs had larger colas and larger bud sites at harvest than the 1 that was not.
2) All lbuds on lollipopped plants received full light entire grow
3) More crystal/resin production on buds from lollipopped plants.
I will post pics of these results on my grow journal once im done curing.
I am still going to continue to try this method due to my circumstances, but I believe I would not do this anymore if I had a larger grow space based on Uncle Bens Information, something which just isnt going to happen anytime soon. Since my space is small, and my results seem to be doing well, I will try this method again on at least half of the plants in the grow space for another comparison to solidify my decision.
I am glad this thread has shown some life!
I have also spoken with UncleBen off the thread and he speaks from experience and makes a lot of good points....just maybe needs to learn a little bit of tact in order to get other people to listen a bit better
I believe in the end everyone has their own grow circumstances, which means their own obstacles, environment, and any other factor that makes the grow itself unique. I don't just try something because it sounds cool, and this method was no different. Below are some reasons for me even finding out about this method.
Factors for me trying lollipopping:
1) In my flower room the space is 2 ft deep by 5 ft wide which does not give a lot of room to grow and it can get crowded.
2) By the time the plants are 6 -7 weeks old, the lower leaves can no longer receive adequate light.
3) Low branches left intact produce tiny small buds barely worth time to trim
4) Air flow is needed underneath plants in my small space
5) Need all light to be used on top canopy of buds to avoid weak lower light issue
Used this method on 2/3 white widows with results:
1) The 2 Lollipopped WWs had larger colas and larger bud sites at harvest than the 1 that was not.
2) All lbuds on lollipopped plants received full light entire grow
3) More crystal/resin production on buds from lollipopped plants.
I will post pics of these results on my grow journal once im done curing.
I am still going to continue to try this method due to my circumstances, but I believe I would not do this anymore if I had a larger grow space based on Uncle Bens Information, something which just isnt going to happen anytime soon. Since my space is small, and my results seem to be doing well, I will try this method again on at least half of the plants in the grow space for another comparison to solidify my decision.
I am glad this thread has shown some life!
Brick Top
New Member
Something I find absolutely stunning about many growers is their desperate desire for proven botanical science to NOT be factored into what they do. They fervently desire a disconnect from all other forms of plant life and marijuana so they can then claim things to be good and right and the best way to do things … even though it flies in the face of proven botanical science that applies equally to marijuana plants as it does to other plants and trees and bushes.
　
The thing about marijuana plants is they are tough as hell, they are weeds, they will take a licking and keep on ticking and that gives the uneducated grower the inaccurate impression that what they are doing is working well or is spot on when it is absolutely nothing more than a case of the plants being strong enough and resilient enough to withstand the ABUSE growers inflict on them and still give them respectable results.
　
Those results would be far, FAR better minus the ABUSE that many growers inflict on their plants while thinking they are some sort of horti-fucking-culturist when they are more like Gestapo agents torturing their plants to get what they want from them.
　
You should never sell short botanical science or experience and especially never sell short the combination of the two.
　
You told Uncle Ben that he comes; "off like a know-it-all asshole." Well when you know most everything there is to know about something it does take effort to hide your vast knowledge and since this is a site for sharing knowledge and not hiding it regardless of how you may perceive Uncle Ben’s approach you should be damn glad that you do have a real honest to goodness actually does "know-it-all" person to go to when times are tough.
　
A somewhat common phenomenon among many older more experienced higher educated growers is having something of a blunt way of putting things. People ask, they tell, period the end. If you then come back at them and want to argue their experience and knowledge and education some will get gruff with you and basically say buzz off, you asked and did not listen so it is sink or swim time for you. They do not appreciate being asked and then having their advice ignored or worse yet argued in favor of what someone else who knows little claims to be best and it is just because the person like how that person put things than the blunt way the knowledgeable grower put things.
　
Proven botanical science is just that, proven botanical science and it applies to marijuana plants just as it does to others and I find it very sad that so very many willfully refuse to accept proven botanical science in favor of fad systems and inaccurate information and partially inaccurate information and misperception and the incorrect connecting of dots leading to a claimed but non existent cause and effect and myths and urban legends and old hippie folklore … and maybe my favorite of all times .. the BRAND NEW THING THAT SOMEONE JUST THOUGHT UP AND WILL BE GREAT but is the same thing I knew people trying in the 60’s and the 70’s and the 80’s and the 90’s and it FLOPPED EVERY SINGLE TIME but yet some noob ‘thinks up something brand new’ and thinks they may begin a revolution in marijuana growing when all they did was added their names to a very, very long list of people who had a bad idea, tried it, failed and then went on to learn from people who knew what they were talking about the correct way to do things.
If an experienced degreed botanist were to closely look at the various different generally accepted, as being normal or proven systems of growing marijuana my guess is the final recommendation would be that some are totally dropped and that others are altered either slightly to greatly if the very best final results are what is desired.
　
Sadly the total amount of proven botanical information the average grower has could be place on the head of a pin and then lost there unable to ever be found again due to the incredibly vast amount of pinhead space left over and what makes it worse is that very, VERY few, if any, have any desire whatsoever to educate themselves to even the slightest degree about botanical science.
　
The same unwillingness to educate themselves or to even just open themselves up to being educated even in the slightest bit is what keeps people from just listening to people like Uncle Ben and instead forces them to argue with him and claim him to be wrong and say things like; "And I don't think you really know what you're talking about in the first place." You also said; "Who the fuck are you to call someone's plants pathetic?"
　
People like Uncle Ben new far more about growing marijuana than most growers ever will and he knew it decades before many members here were even born yet. Who are you to question Uncle Ben'’ expertise?
　
Uncle Ben is the one and only, thee singular person here who if I were experiencing problems and could not seem to figure them out I would go to for advice … and I have 37 years of growing experience to fall back on along with four family members with degrees in botany, two who used to grow, and who are all cool and have no problem in answering any questions I may have … but in the end it would be Uncle Ben who would be Da’ Man.
　
Ignore the valuable advice he gives you if you wish and then argue with him about it if it pleases you but it will only cost you in the long run.
mared juwan
Well-Known Member
I really resent all that shit you said BrickTop. Do you not remember me? Gonna pretend you never pm'd me to talk about Lemon Skunk? Am I really such an unreasonable and ignorant prick as you imply? Was your boy Uncle Ben right in calling someone's plants pathetic? Go ahead and take his side. I forgive you.
I still think you are both misinterpretting the topic. You read it as "removing fan leaves equals bad" but there's more to it than that. I think botanical science agrees that a branch which is completely blocked from direct light will not produce much usable bud. Therefore if you have a tangly jungle of long lower branches none of them will yield much. Selectively removing only enough of them to allow the remaining branches to be unshaded will benefit yield. I have tried it and I respect all your guys experience but nothing you can say will convince me what I have seen isn't true.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
There is no question that the large fan leaves are responsible for a good amount of photosynthesis and that removing them removes their ability to do so. but, there is also a question of weather or not the plant can still undrgo adequate amounts of photosynthesis with a portion of them removed.
As stated above, lower growth can drop to near zero with a dense canopy and it is possible that what is lost up top is more than made up for by increased bottom growth. Ideally, plants should be grown short enough so that there is little or no bottom growth to need light, but in the case of larger plants it is possible that there could be a net gain from removing some fan leaves. Also remember that the top colas are very close to the super intense light and may be just fine without the fan leaves.
As stated above, lower growth can drop to near zero with a dense canopy and it is possible that what is lost up top is more than made up for by increased bottom growth. Ideally, plants should be grown short enough so that there is little or no bottom growth to need light, but in the case of larger plants it is possible that there could be a net gain from removing some fan leaves. Also remember that the top colas are very close to the super intense light and may be just fine without the fan leaves.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Excellent points! Folks posting to cannabis forums, primarily noobs who don't have a firm cultural foundation and therefore are in a position of weakness, are apt to be sucked into gimmicks, fads, trends, and overpriced crap rather than botany. It's the easy way out, and also the most costly in the long run. Like I said, some have to learn the hard way.
Wanna be the next Forum Queen? Come up with some gimmick or trend that guarantees megabuds. Smoke-n-mirrors welcome. Then there are those that are smart enough not to be taken in by the nonsense because they do their homework and understand what makes a plant tick.
As an aside, I find your political correctness rather nauseating mared juwan.
"We all are all dreamers, and conmen fulfill that dream",
UB
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
My bad, I misunderstood the point of this thread.
What is wrong with removing low branches that aren't good for anything anyway? Clearly, energy is required to keep these branches alive and heavily shaded branches die anyway. I don't know that this will do anything magical but I don't see the harm. Of course it is kind of a moot point because an experienced grower doesn't have wasted growth to begin with. If your plants are topping 24" you are fucking up IMO.
What is wrong with removing low branches that aren't good for anything anyway? Clearly, energy is required to keep these branches alive and heavily shaded branches die anyway. I don't know that this will do anything magical but I don't see the harm. Of course it is kind of a moot point because an experienced grower doesn't have wasted growth to begin with. If your plants are topping 24" you are fucking up IMO.
mared juwan
Well-Known Member
Once again you have not acknowledged what I really said. I never said this was a strategy for megabuds or anything like that. It is a REMEDY for overcrowding and doesn't work with every strain. It is a fix for a non-ideal situation. Of course you would like to have enough light and space for all branches to receive full light but that's not always possible. You can choose in these situations to have a tangle of lower branches with only a few pistils at the end of flower or you can remove a few and get nice sized buds on the remaining branches. I don't know how many other ways to say it.
And where does this political correctness stuff keep coming from? Because I told you to fuck off for calling dude's plants pathetic? If you think treating people like shit is the way to go who am I to stop you?
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
southern homegrower
Well-Known Member
damn good movie
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
One of my faves.
BTW, ALL of my inside gardens have been overcrowded, and I managed to retain the LOWER leaves until harvest whether it be pure sativa, indica-dom or your typical mutt of a mutt of a mutt with the latest and greatest kewl fancy name.
If I can do it, u fellers kan two.
Roland
Active Member
I thought .... that "Lollipopping" meant .. To put a clone (or a bunch of clones) under 12/12 flowering lights from very early in development .. thereby forcing a single large Cola which grows to about fourteen inches of total height .. with little or no trimming, topping or any other pruning ..
I still think that is what "Lollipopping" means .....
signed: Cool Hand Roland
I still think that is what "Lollipopping" means .....
signed: Cool Hand Roland
Brick Top
New Member
Chlorophyll gives plants their green color. There are other pigments in the leaves too, such as xanthophylls (yellows) and carotenoids (yellows, oranges and reds). These pigments are also used in photosynthesis but occur in lesser quantities than the green chlorophyll. The combinations of the different pigments make different shades of green.
Now the reason that plants look green is that they are trying to obtain energy from the sun using a particular part of the light spectrum, mainly the red and infra red wavelengths.
If you took any physics classes and remember much you might remember that the color you see is the color that is reflected from the object, the other colors are absorbed.
So in the case of green plants, the green wavelength is reflected and all the other colors especially reds and blues, are absorbed to drive the energy cycle in the plants.
That of course is why most plants appear to be green.
But the leaves are not as solid as they appear to the human eye or to human touch. Light rays pass through leaves striking leaves below them, though with some reduced intensity, but just because a leaf or some leaves are intermingled and under others does not mean they are not getting adequate light unless someones lighting is substandard.
　
You referred to some branches and leaves being; "in complete darkness."
If you move around into different positions and not move plants around can you see the leaves? Can you accurately see their color?
If you can see the leaves they cannot be in complete darkness and if you can accurately see the leaf color then all spectrums of light are reaching that leaf or leaves and again that means there cannot be; "complete darkness."
　
If a light system is substandard for certain types of growing styles and or someone does not use reflective material or uses low-grade reflective material and the grower allows their plants to outgrow their lighting then yes you can have areas of low light, low enough where leaves and even branches will die due to lack of light.
That can often times be the case when someone is new to growing or new to using HID lighting because some do tend to expect far more out of lower wattage HID lights than they can provide and until the grower figures things out they will allow their plants to outgrow their lighting and end up with tall plants with bare or nearly bare bottoms.
　
But if you have good lighting and good reflective material you can pack them in like sardines and the plants will still grow like mad and the production will not suffer.
Brick Top
New Member
Lolipopping is trimming off the lower 1/3 of the plant while after being in veg for about 1 week. When you flower that focuses all the plant energy on the top 2/3 of the plant where the buds get the biggest and skip the smaller buds and popcorn.
That is the theory anyway. I just wonder how much energy is lost by the loss of leaves and how much can still be collected to then supposedly allocate most of it to the upper portion of the plant?
There would have to be a point of diminishing returns where enough leaves/branches would be cut and there be a net loss of collectable energy great enough to cause a negative result.
　
Part of the system is to not allow any energy to be used to grow smaller buds and popcorn buds.
That seems sound enough. But along those branches that are cut off to remove those budsites are the largest most efficient collectors of energy a plant has and they are also the plants largest most efficient factories for the processing of sugars and nutrients for current use and for storage for nightly use and for future use.
If someone has adequate lighting and reflective material those leaves have to collect way more energy than is used by the creation and minor growth of smaller buds and popcorn buds so ridding plants of those leaves would not be conducive to maximum overall top to bottom bud production.