a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Me too. If i had to do it all over again i would of put way more effort to my veg area to begin with. As far as lighting goes that is.
Why spend $$$ on a flowering lamp if you have a $ veg lamp?
- Thread starter churchhaze
- Start date
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Go read it yourself. In the words of sativied, You're making a strawman argument.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Please, these are just random photos from the internet. Can you not see where the canopy begins and ends and that there is no structure below the canopy? And that if you were to continue vegging these plants beyond their optimum height and volume, you would literally be growing more stem to trim?
I don't know how to explain it any simpler: there is a point of diminishing returns where it doesn't matter how long you veg for - you are simply wasting time and energy on growth that will not develop into full flowers:
I don't know how to explain it any simpler: there is a point of diminishing returns where it doesn't matter how long you veg for - you are simply wasting time and energy on growth that will not develop into full flowers:
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
DING DING DING DING DING DING. So you WILL yield more, but you will bump into diminishing returns!! FUCKING DUH!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I read his posts.
I read your posts.
So while I see the argument, it is possible that YOU see a different argument.
Thus I asked without rancor or prejudice "articulate it".
That would assist MY data-driven approach to figuring out why we are going around and around.
But you just played the weasel card of "read back yourself". This marks you, not the other guy, as the troll here.
I repect @Sativied. If he told me I was making a strawman argument, he'd back his words and articulate the fallacy I was promoting. Will you?
Articulate the strawman argument.
Then we might have a basis for further discussion. But should you choose your current avenue of insinuation concealed as a "data-driven" approach, combined with non-disclosure of the data, you are rapidly establishing yourself as a bad-faith interlocutor. You know perfectly well you could have ended this exchange three pages ago by disclosing the data that drive your opinion. Yet you did not do so. To me, that stinks of dishonesty.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
A massive
A massive amount of veg time went into the pics you posted. Millions of months for sure.Please, these are just random photos from the internet. Can you not see where the canopy begins and ends and that there is no structure below the canopy? And that if you were to continue vegging these plants beyond their optimum height and volume, you would literally be growing more stem to trim?
I don't know how to explain it any simpler: there is a point of diminishing returns where it doesn't matter how long you veg for - you are simply wasting time and energy on growth that will not develop into full flowers:
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
And before some smart-arse says "Well I don't grow like that" - well maybe you should! Because SOGging and SCROGing are two of the most efficient ways to grow cannabis with horizontal lights, and they both work on similar principles - maximising canopy exposure to light.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
THAT is why g/kWh. It removes that pitfall.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Right, but like I said, you're making a completely different argument (which is also one of his arguments and one I've done nothing but vocally agree with)
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No. I am not. I am arguing efficiency of yield. What other argument is there? Especially when you won't set it in stone for honest discussion?
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Seriously, you're a fuckwit.
The law of diminishing returns states you will eventually reach ZERO.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
I was never arguing with you. I don't think there's a single thing you said that I haven't outright agreed with. You're not the one calling me names for thinking a plant with more veg time will yield more.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Yeah, about the same amount that went into your post? You've kinda missed the point, haven't you?
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I love this place! 
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Diminishing returns means you get less out the more you put in. That means putting in more will always give you more out.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Then why did they trim all those lower branches? Why not leave them and increase their yield?
Do you even grow pot? Seriously. Many people have done this over the years and you honestly think they do it to their detriment?
Do you even grow pot? Seriously. Many people have done this over the years and you honestly think they do it to their detriment?
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
I don't have ESP so I'd have to ask them. A few reasons I can think are increased airflow and not wanting to deal with trimming popcorn.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Read my edit. And I'm really done now. The proof is in the pudding.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of people here who think it's dumb to clean off lower branches... You say you've been around since the overgrow days, yet you take age old wars and act like there's a consensus around everything.
Edit: I never did say it was to their detriment btw. That's something you made up.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This takes us back to the start of our vigorous exchange.
Just so. Once the canopy is full, I don't think any extra veg time will add yield. How one gets to a full canopy is consequential; methods that use less time and light (SOG) will have an advantage.
This is the argument I have been addressing. It originated with you. So for it to be a strawman argument ... you have the burden of establishing that.
You do know that you seriously insulted me unless you can prove that I did mount a strawman argument. I request that you either back it up solidly or retract it.