Should some leafage be pruned to let light penetrate canopy

Science is repeatable. Science can be demonstrated. If we are going to argue about scientific facts (Arguable facts?), then we should repeat the studies that demonstrate them. If not, we cannot argue the results. But for this, we need to devise a method for a controlled experiment. If we cannot do this... No one can claim to know either way.

Stop arguing like kids and start growing.

Hell I'll even admit that if you took two small plants side by side like I grow and did one with pruning and leaf removal and the other you didnt touch it that the pruned one would yield less. IF they are both placed on a tray with lots of room around them. The only reason to hack the plant is to stuff tons of them in there . SCROG and SOG have been proven for many many years to provide superior yields. Personally I have grown thousands of plants each way and my results speak for themselves. People are focusing far too much on a single dimensional aspect of growing. You have to look at the whole picture from multiple angles to max your space out. 64 main colas is going to yield more then 6 main colas or what have you with lots of popcorn buds below them, IF it is done properly. The books and science backing up non leaf removal do NOT take this into account. What me and a lot of other growers on here want is MAX yield not what one plant will do with or without its leaves. If the years and years and tens of thousands of plants or more arent "proof" or scientific enough for some certain people thats just too bad. It works, get over it.

dlively11 said:

Right so exactly what kind of proof is there on a forum if detailed pictures of individual plants , the room ,trays and every detail about the grow don't count ? Sorry but this is all anyone can provide on a forum end of story.

Click to expand...

You could start a journal and post your growing method in detail. Start growing two groups of plants of equal area, light and climate. All plants should bear similar growth habits and be healthy. One group is grown using your method of pruning and a control group of plants using Uncle Ben's method of not pruning. Have Uncle Ben and anyone else do the same, following both methods to a 'T'. Post pics, progress and relevant info weekly. In two months we should have a definitive answer demonstrated in various conditions.

UB says it needs to be some super study for him to consider having any validity at all. Simply put that is ridicules. He and others in here dont beleive in SCROG or Lollipo either which are also PROVEN to work. Both require MAJOR defoliation.

Click to expand...

Then they ought to step up to the plate and participate in a controlled study through mass collaboration or risk having their arguments become invalid. If three or four people took up the challenge, the results ought to be enough for even the most skeptical of us. If hundreds did this it could conceivably be something 'scientific'.

... ANYONE in doubt of this just needs to grow4-12 plants at per foot and see for themselves what works and what doesnt. In order to fit that many plants in you HAVE to remove leaves no if ands or buts. The reason to stuff that many plants in is to create a VERY full and even canopy of pure buds hence increasing yields. It works just like SCROGing works and LOLLIPOP works. It really isnt as complicated as many of the people in here are making it out to be.

Click to expand...

I hear ya. But I keep seeing threads where you and Uncle Ben have this same argument. So why not put an end to the myth and prove what you know to be true. Right now there is too much conjecture, not enough proof.

Fact: Yellow and Red-Twig Dogwood (But not Red Osier.) respond well to heavy pruning by producing many lush healthy leaves. They remain healthiest when this is done every few years. To wit, sometimes heavy pruning can be an advantageous method of reaching certain horticultural goals.

dlively11 said:

Hell I'll even admit that if you took two small plants side by side like I grow and did one with pruning and leaf removal and the other you didnt touch it that the pruned one would yield less. IF they are both placed on a tray with lots of room around them. The only reason to hack the plant is to stuff tons of them in there . SCROG and SOG have been proven for many many years to provide superior yields. Personally I have grown thousands of plants each way and my results speak for themselves. People are focusing far too much on a single dimensional aspect of growing. You have to look at the whole picture from multiple angles to max your space out. 64 main colas is going to yield more then 6 main colas or what have you with lots of popcorn buds below them, IF it is done properly. The books and science backing up non leaf removal do NOT take this into account. What me and a lot of other growers on here want is MAX yield not what one plant will do with or without its leaves. If the years and years and tens of thousands of plants or more arent "proof" or scientific enough for some certain people thats just too bad. It works, get over it.

Click to expand...

Again, I agree. In my last post I mention using an 'equal area', as opposed to an equal number of plants . But the only way to settle this once and for all is to collaborate with others and irrefutably prove it with a repeatable experiment. Pictures alone don't really prove anything. Nor does telling people you have done it thousands of times before.

I see both you and Uncle Ben as reliable sources for info and advice, seeing as you both seem to know what you are doing. Now you guys are at an impasse. Knowing how hard it is to dispel growing myths, I would expect that expert growers wouldn't be averse to working together to bust them by using the scientific method. RIU is the perfect medium for mass collaboration on growing cannabis.

Too bad ICMag and Grasscity have already presented all the evidence in their defoliation threads. It is unfortunate so much talent winds up over there and here gets so many kids and trolls.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=174163

http://forum.grasscity.com/plant-training/668315-defoliating-higher-yields.html

Just because someone hasn't posted it here doesn't make it less true. Do some homework and you'll find that EVERYTHING which has been requested of the defoliators has been presented for review.

RIU is not the king of Cannabis Forums unfortunately. The community here is no where near the level of ICMag, but at least above GrassCity. You may have to sign up at these sites to view the pictures, and I know the threads are hundreds of pages long... Just a lot of people claiming not to see the OBVIOUS gains of defoliation.

Eventually I'll dig through them and present to you the evidence of someone else. I'm not going to do a "side-by-side" to prove something to a non-believer. You want evidence? Do it yourself. You think it's bad advice? Then YOU!!! prove it.

I say the burden of proof is on the Status Quo to prove that their method is superior to Defoliation.
I say that the NaySayers do the side-by-side and stop asking for hand outs from other growers.

Snow Crash said:

Too bad ICMag and Grasscity have already presented all the evidence in their defoliation threads. It is unfortunate so much talent winds up over there and here gets so many kids and trolls.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=174163

http://forum.grasscity.com/plant-training/668315-defoliating-higher-yields.html


Just because someone hasn't posted it here doesn't make it less true. Do some homework and you'll find that EVERYTHING which has been requested of the defoliators has been presented for review.

RIU is not the king of Cannabis Forums unfortunately. The community here is no where near the level of ICMag, but at least above GrassCity. You may have to sign up at these sites to view the pictures, and I know the threads are hundreds of pages long... Just a lot of people claiming not to see the OBVIOUS gains of defoliation.

Eventually I'll dig through them and present to you the evidence of someone else. I'm not going to do a "side-by-side" to prove something to a non-believer. You want evidence? Do it yourself. You think it's bad advice? Then YOU!!! prove it.

I say the burden of proof is on the Status Quo to prove that their method is superior to Defoliation.
I say that the NaySayers do the side-by-side and stop asking for hand outs from other growers.

Click to expand...

you make no sense. People have grown plants NOT defoliating them time after time. Now you come along and say "Hey you guys prove your method is better, cause my method is newer." I say the burden of proof is on the 'new' techniques. Where are the obvious gains? I've read plenty of defoliation forums, and they all talk about the extra veg time that is necessary for the method to work. Ever think extra veg time will improve yields? Naw couldn't be....

I see photo's of nice plants, very well grown. What I don't see is a plant grown in those conditions that didn't receive any trimming to compare them to. I'm not a 'non-believer', in fact, I'm not even in this argument, all I'm saying is that if these two are going to spend the rest of their lives arguing over this, then they might as well help people, and do a grow off.

It doesn't matter what growing forum it is, there is tons of conjecture and argument over techniques. Posters (Especially the ones who seem to know their shit.) go on about the science, the pics, their experience, and the importance of dispelling myths and misinformation by educating others. The one thing you rarely, if ever, see is a controlled study by these people that would provide irrefutable proof.

If you don't want to participate, then don't. But don't imply that I'm lazy because I want these two to work together to resolve a contentious issue. The burden of proof actually lies with those claiming defoliation, since the opposing method is natural growth - The control method. It also makes more sense that those with the most knowledge of the technique provide the methodology for the experiment. Providing a control group accounts for environmental factors, and creates a constant that can be used for comparing results from one grow to another.

Give me some time and I'll start doing comparison tests. It's not feasible for me right now, but in the near future that is exactly what I plan to do.

sk'mo said:

I see photo's of nice plants, very well grown. What I don't see is a plant grown in those conditions that didn't receive any trimming to compare them to. I'm not a 'non-believer', in fact, I'm not even in this argument, all I'm saying is that if these two are going to spend the rest of their lives arguing over this, then they might as well help people, and do a grow off.

It doesn't matter what growing forum it is, there is tons of conjecture and argument over techniques. Posters (Especially the ones who seem to know their shit.) go on about the science, the pics, their experience, and the importance of dispelling myths and misinformation by educating others. The one thing you rarely, if ever, see is a controlled study by these people that would provide irrefutable proof.

If you don't want to participate, then don't. But don't imply that I'm lazy because I want these two to work together to resolve a contentious issue. The burden of proof actually lies with those claiming defoliation, since the opposing method is natural growth - The control method. It also makes more sense that those with the most knowledge of the technique provide the methodology for the experiment. Providing a control group accounts for environmental factors, and creates a constant that can be used for comparing results from one grow to another.

Give me some time and I'll start doing comparison tests. It's not feasible for me right now, but in the near future that is exactly what I plan to do.

Click to expand...

You are far to level headed for this thread my friend =) Its tough because people that dont want to believe in something probably never will no matter what you do. I could do a hundred plants one way and the other another and UB would simply come in and say there were other factors involved and it defies science etc etc etc ..... Its like talking to a wall. I can say that I have for a fact grown thousands of plants both ways and there isnt even a comparison. I'll say it again though, that when I grow say 16 plants on a 4X4 with little to no pruning I get a lot higher yield per plant of course. But 64 plants in the same space with butchering the poor buggers gets me a lot higher yield due to the large volume of colas. I also really like the fact I get a lot less of the small airy popcorn buds. I have no reason to BS anyone on here. I only post to help people grow better. Lots of guys in here are limited to small spaces and they will benefit the most from these types of grows if they are looking for max yield. I spent the last 5 years fine tuning this indoors grow of mine and RIU has been the last thing on my mind until very recently.

Maybe I'll do a grow off of my own and make it as fair as possible. Problem with doing this is I already know what will happen if I do a full 64 plant tray and dont cut anything. I'll lose a ton of yield ..... which I dont really want to do. That or perhaps do a 64 plant tray chopped and then a 16 plant tray not chopped which would also be full if they vet a little longer and compare. I dont think that will answer enough questions though. The only way to really do it is to do two 64 plant trays one with and one without. Naysayers will still call BS on it though unfortunatly but I think most people can beleive their own eyes and dont beleive people are on these boards to fool them.

dively, you have not posted any facts, just YOUR experience. you have provided zero scientific backing to your claims. here is an example, if a city gets its energy from natural gas and coal, and you take one of those away, or part of them away, does this mean the city will have more energy? no it does not. whether you like it or not, your buds need energy to grow. taking fan leaves off, which account for the MAJORITY of energy supplied to the plant through photosynthesis, makes there be less energy to make buds. yes, you can take every single leaf off your plant and just leave bud sites, but i guarantee that you will have hardly any bud on that plant.

Here's what you're not getting, your setup is very different from everyone else. You're cramming 62 plants into a 4x4 area. I've already said this to you in another thread, you can't compare your "methods" or whatever, across the board. You get the weight you get because of the number of plants you're growing. Almost no other reason. I'm not taking away everything else you do or that you pay attention to, but the biggest reason for your weight is your plant count. To do that many plants, you really wouldn't have any other choice. Your canopy would be too full. If you were to pull 14 grams a plant, that still gives you 2 pounds per tray. Most people don't grow like that, most people don't cram so many plants into a small space like that. Most people don't bother with 64 plants per light. The childish way you argue and the points you try to prove is interpreted by average nubies that are only growing a couple of plants. They'll get screwed if they trim out all their fan leaves. These are the dudes, that are hoping for multiple ounces per plant for it to be worth it to them...Try growing 12 plants like that and see what you get? You know I'm right, but you conveniently leave that out. I still stand by my position that trimming fan leaves will lower your yield and quality. I have science and botanical facts supporting my statement. All you can say is that you get 2 pounds a light and trimming fan leaves is the reason for it. It's not....the number of plants you're growing is the reason.

As for your claim of over 30 grams a plant in a 64 plant tray, it's just that, nothing more than a claim. Even so, it's nothing special. Doesn't prove shit. A lot of us have grown plants with huge colas. What's your point?

I'll also say this and I've had this discussion with you before too, don't be such a dick and don't start any drama dude. You don't need to high jack people's threads...You wanna contribute then do so, good info usually comes from discussion, but not the way you do it because you don't discuss anything. You're like a fucking horse with the shades on your eyes that only let you see straight. Then you start bitching like a 2 year old that wants a toy and daddy won't get it for you. Act a little like a grown up man. Show some respect if you wanna be talked to with respect. Besides, you may just come across as a little more intelligent.

ElectricPineapple said:

dively, you have not posted any facts, just YOUR experience. you have provided zero scientific backing to your claims. here is an example, if a city gets its energy from natural gas and coal, and you take one of those away, or part of them away, does this mean the city will have more energy? no it does not. whether you like it or not, your buds need energy to grow. taking fan leafs off, which account for the MAJORITY of energy supplied to the plant through photosynthesis, makes there be less energy to make buds. yes, you can take every single leaf off your plant and just leave bud sites, but i guarantee that you will have hardly any bud on that plant.

Click to expand...

Perhaps there is another process you are not considering that will offset this loss of photosynthetic energy when a leaf is removed.


The largest fan leafs are the furthest distance from their respective stalk.
The largest leafs require a greatest amount of energy for the transport of nutrition needed for health and cell maintenance.
Large leafs can capture the most amount of energy.
Smaller leafs are closer to their stems.
Smaller leafs have the lowest energy requirements to transport nutrition needed for health and cell maintenance.
Smaller leafs capture less energy.

Removing a large fan leaf that is covering several smaller fan leafs results in very little net energy loss. The lower fan leafs still gather up the energy but now the plant spends less energy moving nutrition. Much of the energy that has been lost, due to removal of the leaf, would have been dedicated back into the leaf which is no longer present.

The smaller leafs that are receiving a greater deal of energy (than before) will be able to focus the available energy directly into the side branch nodes. This results in each side branch generating more new mass than they would have while slowing the top growth. When you consider the entire plant, this results in greater overall gains in the total mass of the plant.



Perhaps I can persuade others towards my logic with this mental exercise:

One large leaf lays atop 4 smaller leafs. The total amount of energy generated is (for discussions sake) 100 "points", and the cost of energy required to maintain these leafs is 50 "points" (25 points for the small ones, 25 points for the big one). This is a total gain of 50 points.

The large fan leaf is removed from the pile of leafs. The 4 leafs now capture the energy. The generated energy is less than before, but not dramatically, 85 points (15% less). The cost of maintenance is now 25 points. This results in a total gain of 60 points of energy.



Each side branch can contain several leafs. These leafs, if given the opportunity, will fill out and create a larger surface area for absorption and "spend" less energy doing work like mobilizing nutrients and water. Over time this results in an increase in vigor. As the plant hardens from the stress reaction and hormones released this vigor becomes exponential after a point, and more frequent defoliation leading up to flowering is necessary.

In a short period of time, less than 100 hours the plant will have completely rebounded from a defoliation. Here is a day by day progression of several plants in various states of training all being defoliated to demonstrate the time it takes for recovery.

Baseline


Right after defoliation


24 hours later


48 hours later


72 hours later


500 hours after defoliation pictured, and after 2 other defoliations not pictured. (2 weeks from the first picture).


I lost the first 72 hours to the rebound. During these three days the immature side branches became more mature than they would have otherwise. Eventually the plants turned into these just massive bushes nearly 2 feet wide. The plants are too big even! I have a solid 8 square feet of canopy using 3 plants (could have done it with two) And you can't see the coco from the top.

I'm dying to see a plant of your own, which hasn't been defoliated at all, that can compare to this after 40 days Veg under a 400w system. ~4 square foot canopy and over a dozen tops.


I cannot argue against the science that yes, leafs use light to create energy.
What I'm asking you to be open minded to is that the loss of a single leaf doesn't necessarily translate into a gross loss of vigor.
The methods might be equal when you consider the time requirements, harvesting the same weight in a year, but what that means is that defoliation does not cripple a plant in the ways I'm hearing.

You can't argue with the bud sites, and yet you are saying that I should have fewer than I do based on your logic. Each site is even, mature, and has several large leafs of its own. The canopy is EXCEPTIONALLY dense and this has set up a great foundation for flowering. I'm very happy with this plant and would enjoy having more like it in my garden. Wouldn't you?

Defoliation stops after the first week of flowering because the plant does need the leafs left around to generate energy. It is best to be applied only during vegetative growth when the focus of the plant is on leaf mass. Once flowers are the primary focus then the grower should most definitely stop removing leafs and let those flowers plump up.

my plant pictured at start of thread is 40 days old under a 400w in coco and never had any leaves taken off and to be honest it looks bigger than you pictured at 40days veg but hard to tell from photos
but ty for explaining your thinking behind it, showing pic and not just arguing

OZUT said:

Here's what you're not getting, your setup is very different from everyone else. You're cramming 62 plants into a 4x4 area. I've already said this to you in another thread, you can't compare your "methods" or whatever, across the board. You get the weight you get because of the number of plants you're growing. Almost no other reason. I'm not taking away everything else you do or that you pay attention to, but the biggest reason for your weight is your plant count. To do that many plants, you really wouldn't have any other choice. Your canopy would be too full. If you were to pull 14 grams a plant, that still gives you 2 pounds per tray. Most people don't grow like that, most people don't cram so many plants into a small space like that. Most people don't bother with 64 plants per light. The childish way you argue and the points you try to prove is interpreted by average nubies that are only growing a couple of plants. They'll get screwed if they trim out all their fan leaves. These are the dudes, that are hoping for multiple ounces per plant for it to be worth it to them...Try growing 12 plants like that and see what you get? You know I'm right, but you conveniently leave that out. I still stand by my position that trimming fan leaves will lower your yield and quality. I have science and botanical facts supporting my statement. All you can say is that you get 2 pounds a light and trimming fan leaves is the reason for it. It's not....the number of plants you're growing is the reason.

As for your claim of over 30 grams a plant in a 64 plant tray, it's just that, nothing more than a claim. Even so, it's nothing special. Doesn't prove shit. A lot of us have grown plants with huge colas. What's your point?

I'll also say this and I've had this discussion with you before too, don't be such a dick and don't start any drama dude. You don't need to high jack people's threads...You wanna contribute then do so, good info usually comes from discussion, but not the way you do it because you don't discuss anything. You're like a fucking horse with the shades on your eyes that only let you see straight. Then you start bitching like a 2 year old that wants a toy and daddy won't get it for you. Act a little like a grown up man. Show some respect if you wanna be talked to with respect. Besides, you may just come across as a little more intelligent.

Click to expand...

I get it and actually just posted that exact thing in my previous post ...... I was very specific even.... As for most people, actually LOTS of people do full SOG grows. Also this is the advanced section not newbie section. Trimming leaves on my grow helps yields which is a fact and the only thing I ever stated. I never once stated trimming leaves on a regular grow was going to increase yields. Again it seems you just read every other sentence I type.... Just look at my last two posts. you are just arguing to argue at this point even on something we agree on.

The point to the 30 grams per plant average I pointed out was that in order to get max yield on a horizontal grow you really have no choice but to remove leaves in one way or another. Also it is a FACT not a claim so get over it already and stop getting so butt hurt over that fact. Getting 3+ lbs n a tray by doing this and cutting leaves dispels the myth that removing leaves never has a place or time like so many in here would like everyone to believe.


I find it hisarical that you say "dont create drama dude" and the next sentence call me a "dick" AGAIN. I never name called you, I guess that shows who is who in this thread doesnt it. If I was UB I would report you lol. Man you just made yourself look like a complete and total ... well never mind everyone can see this for themselves. You did a nice job hanging yourself in this thread so I'll thank you instead =)

Snow Crash said:

Perhaps there is another process you are not considering that will offset this loss of photosynthetic energy when a leaf is removed.


The largest fan leafs are the furthest distance from their respective stalk.
The largest leafs require a greatest amount of energy for the transport of nutrition needed for health and cell maintenance.
Large leafs can capture the most amount of energy.
Smaller leafs are closer to their stems.
Smaller leafs have the lowest energy requirements to transport nutrition needed for health and cell maintenance.
Smaller leafs capture less energy.

Removing a large fan leaf that is covering several smaller fan leafs results in very little net energy loss. The lower fan leafs still gather up the energy but now the plant spends less energy moving nutrition. Much of the energy that has been lost, due to removal of the leaf, would have been dedicated back into the leaf which is no longer present.

The smaller leafs that are receiving a greater deal of energy (than before) will be able to focus the available energy directly into the side branch nodes. This results in each side branch generating more new mass than they would have while slowing the top growth. When you consider the entire plant, this results in greater overall gains in the total mass of the plant.



Perhaps I can persuade others towards my logic with this mental exercise:

One large leaf lays atop 4 smaller leafs. The total amount of energy generated is (for discussions sake) 100 "points", and the cost of energy required to maintain these leafs is 50 "points" (25 points for the small ones, 25 points for the big one). This is a total gain of 50 points.

The large fan leaf is removed from the pile of leafs. The 4 leafs now capture the energy. The generated energy is less than before, but not dramatically, 85 points (15% less). The cost of maintenance is now 25 points. This results in a total gain of 60 points of energy.



Each side branch can contain several leafs. These leafs, if given the opportunity, will fill out and create a larger surface area for absorption and "spend" less energy doing work like mobilizing nutrients and water. Over time this results in an increase in vigor. As the plant hardens from the stress reaction and hormones released this vigor becomes exponential after a point, and more frequent defoliation leading up to flowering is necessary.

In a short period of time, less than 100 hours the plant will have completely rebounded from a defoliation. Here is a day by day progression of several plants in various states of training all being defoliated to demonstrate the time it takes for recovery.

Click to expand...

Very well said . Might not make a dent but it sure makes a lot of sense to me. I think some people think we are going in and removing every piece of green we find. Even UB commented on how much leaves he still saw on my plants. I only remove the large fans leaves that protrude away from the main cola not the ones closer in which is why this works so well. I'll still never understand all the negative talkers on this method , maybe some people are just negative.

odlaw said:

my plant pictured at start of thread is 40 days old under a 400w in coco and never had any leaves taken off and to be honest it looks bigger than you pictured at 40days veg but hard to tell from photos
but ty for explaining your thinking behind it, showing pic and not just arguing

Click to expand...

You're right. I feel silly for making that claim because your plant and my plant do look surprisingly similar. I should have taken the time to look before making a jerk out of myself. Good call!

If anything, I think that this proves the removal of the fan leaves has not stunted my plant (despite it looking the way it did two week prior) and this is demonstrated by my defoliated plant looking very similar to a plant that has not been defoliated. Obviously not the same plant, same genetic vigor, etc... So the comparison should be taken with a grain of salt. I did challenge and I did get shown. I can be a big boy and admit that maybe it was a bit presumptuous of me to assume my plant was that much larger. It was late, I was high, you know how that is.

With both methods being equal, yet the scientific fact that these leaves would be providing energy, I think it is VERY clear that another process must be offsetting the negative effects. The NaySayers are not considering the entire complexity of biological life and instead relying on the 4th grade science to try and define their methods. I just don't understand, how when presented with the evidence, that someone could still maintain the narrow viewpoint that defoliation is the Devil's work.

Clearly, very, very clearly, it is at least an equivalent method.

Snow, what you are forgetting is light penetration. although it may LOOK to your eyes that the smaller lower leaves arent getting light they are. the light you can see is mostly green light, which the plant cannot use. Also, what are you pertaining to moving nutrition? you need to clarify that.

That JEW guy's an idiot. And he is wrong. Obviously you do NOT grow commercially or for weight (and dankness) and do not have years of experience under your belt in the highly competative marijuana trade. If you did, you wouldn't be saying this dumb shit. I know ZERO people who grow marijuana and do not do some kind of pruning or leaf removage. If you do not then your buds will never be as good as they could be. Whatever tho man you keep growin your bushes and we'll keep growin our buds. Don't give a fuck kuz youll never be pro. Dively u know ur shit.

jewgrow said:

you make no sense. People have grown plants NOT defoliating them time after time. Now you come along and say "Hey you guys prove your method is better, cause my method is newer." I say the burden of proof is on the 'new' techniques. Where are the obvious gains? I've read plenty of defoliation forums, and they all talk about the extra veg time that is necessary for the method to work. Ever think extra veg time will improve yields? Naw couldn't be....

Click to expand...

I take clones and let them root for a week. Then straight to flower. veg on sog? o man. How do you say that a plant needs extra time to grow when it has less foliage to grow? Now we're just not makin sense. You need to go do a sog grow n then come back to us.

Snow Crash said:

You're right. I feel silly for making that claim because your plant and my plant do look surprisingly similar. I should have taken the time to look before making a jerk out of myself. Good call!

If anything, I think that this proves the removal of the fan leaves has not stunted my plant (despite it looking the way it did two week prior) and this is demonstrated by my defoliated plant looking very similar to a plant that has not been defoliated. Obviously not the same plant, same genetic vigor, etc... So the comparison should be taken with a grain of salt. I did challenge and I did get shown. I can be a big boy and admit that maybe it was a bit presumptuous of me to assume my plant was that much larger. It was late, I was high, you know how that is.

With both methods being equal, yet the scientific fact that these leaves would be providing energy, I think it is VERY clear that another process must be offsetting the negative effects. The NaySayers are not considering the entire complexity of biological life and instead relying on the 4th grade science to try and define their methods. I just don't understand, how when presented with the evidence, that someone could still maintain the narrow viewpoint that defoliation is the Devil's work.

Clearly, very, very clearly, it is at least an equivalent method.

Click to expand...

Take notes Dlively, this is how you have an intelligent conversation and come to a conclusion, whatever that conclusion may be.

Also, as mentioned above about the light penetration, almost 80% - 85% of the light that hits a leaf, penetrates through it to the next leaf. It doesn't just bounce off it or get blocked. So even the leaves that are being "blocked" by that big bad fan leaf are still getting light. And for those that want to argue that the flowers themselves need light to hit them, then rest assured that the fan leaf is not preventing that either. Again, scientific, proven, experimented, solid concrete fact. Just because human eyes can't see that light, doesn't mean it's not there.

Btw, I'm done arguing with you Dlively...post however you wanna post man, I just think you should cool down a little if you wanna be taken serious and not treated like a troll

SOGfarmer said:

That JEW guy's an idiot. And he is wrong. Obviously you do NOT grow commercially or for weight (and dankness) and do not have years of experience under your belt in the highly competative marijuana trade. If you did, you wouldn't be saying this dumb shit. I know ZERO people who grow marijuana and do not do some kind of pruning or leaf removage. If you do not then your buds will never be as good as they could be. Whatever tho man you keep growin your bushes and we'll keep growin our buds. Don't give a fuck kuz youll never be pro. Dively u know ur shit.

Click to expand...

Who are you typing to? Me or everybody else? I obviously do not grow COMMERCIALLY or for weight. I do however grow for 'dankness' as you say, what I call quality. I do not have years of growing experience, but I have plenty of experience in the highly competitive marijuana trade. I do train my plants, but I don't remove large energy storing and collecting leaves. My buds will never be as good as they could be, and at that fact NOBODIES bud will ever be as good as it could...that is called perfection my friend. I will grow my bushes, that do contain bud. I don't give a fuck either as seeing your grammar, YOU will never be a pro . And the most convincing DEFOLIATION threads I have seen talk about extra veg time. TO MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT YOU ARE BUTCHERING YOUR PLANT. A plant needs extra time to grow when you take its leaves off because, guess what, the plant needs leaves to grow. Personally I grow the plants big and few, because of plant limitations.

Good signature btw...fuckin turncoat