# What Is The Second TRUE Node?



## newbiebob (Mar 4, 2010)

i want to try uncle bens topping method.
It says to top at the secon TRUE node.
can anyone tell me exactly what that means. It says to not count the "codelions" (i may have misspelled that)
does this mean that the first node dosent count?
or does that just mean the origional weird leaves dont count but the first node does?
thanks


----------



## Pipe Dream (Mar 4, 2010)

the first set of leaves is round...the second set is jagged but only one leaf....the third set is the true set with more than one leaf per side usually like 3 leaves and more every set.


----------



## SCARHOLE (Mar 4, 2010)

newbiebob said:


> i want to try uncle bens topping method.
> It says to top at the secon TRUE node.
> can anyone tell me exactly what that means. It says to not count the "codelions" (i may have misspelled that)
> does this mean that the first node dosent count?
> ...


Im not a botanast but I believe you are correct.

Its the 2nd set of jaggy leaves that apear. Thats the way i do mine, ( at about 2-3 weeks old) an it makes em bushy for sure. 

Keep your cfls close at this time an your stem will disapear with new growth. 

But some times it dont make as many tops i think is kinda gentic?


----------



## newbiebob (Mar 5, 2010)

thanks guys.
i topped it today 
hopefull it works out
i also clonned the top 
we will see
im hopeing i can flower the clone with the plat in about 2 weeks


----------



## CyberSecks (Mar 5, 2010)

thank you for asking this i was wondering the difference myself


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 5, 2010)

newbiebob said:


> i want to try uncle bens topping method.
> It says to top at the secon TRUE node.
> can anyone tell me exactly what that means. It says to not count the "codelions" (i may have misspelled that)
> does this mean that the first node dosent count?
> ...


You guys ever do a search? The search feature should be used before you ask the same question a millions times. Since you were participants, you know this issue was recently discussed here:
https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/151706-uncle-bens-topping-technique-get-91.html

What is it that you don't get?

UB


----------



## lostinspace (Mar 5, 2010)

I've noticed with many clones that you'll never have matching sets - meaning, the two sides will not be across from eachother, and will be staggered all the way up the trunk. 

I know I could just count pairs up the trunk, but I'm wondering: will topping work very well for these types of plants?


----------



## newbiebob (Mar 5, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> You guys ever do a search? The search feature should be used before you ask the same question a millions times. Since you were participants, you know this issue was recently discussed here:
> https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/151706-uncle-bens-topping-technique-get-91.html
> 
> What is it that you don't get?
> ...


 yes i read it 
that is how i learned about it

since this is my first time doing it 
i just wanted to make sure i cut the plant in the right place.
before you go getting all high and mighty 
look at my name 

what dont you get?


----------



## Afka (Mar 5, 2010)

Look at the cotyledon.
Look above it, there will be 2 leaves with 2 (possibly) dormant axial stems.

Each leaf coming from the main stem has a possibility of being a main growing point.

If you want 2 main branches, cut above the first set of non-cotyledon leaves.

If you want 4 main branches, cut above the 2nd pair of non-cotyledon leaves. (leaving 4 possible branches)

The more growing points you leave, the more divided growth will be.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 6, 2010)

newbiebob said:


> yes i read it
> that is how i learned about it
> 
> since this is my first time doing it
> ...


I get that reading comprehension is not your strongest suit, and that some of you guys are too lazy to read or do a search. I explained in plain English what I consider the first true node in consideration of topping at the page I linked you to plus a scattering of photos including those on the first page. This isn't rocket science. If you can't get such a simple concept after I and many others explained in text and multiple pictures then I suggest you try another hobby or method of training. 

UB


----------



## HarryCarey (Mar 6, 2010)

Whew! smoke a bowl guys


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 6, 2010)

lostinspace said:


> I've noticed with many clones that you'll never have matching sets - meaning, the two sides will not be across from eachother, and will be staggered all the way up the trunk.
> 
> I know I could just count pairs up the trunk, but I'm wondering: will topping work very well for these types of plants?


Here is another that won't bother to read. Clue - read the last page of my topping thread.

Sheesh!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 6, 2010)

HarryCarey said:


> Whew! smoke a bowl guys


Quite the contrary - it's time to put down the bowl and read with a clear head.


----------



## HarryCarey (Mar 6, 2010)

whatever helps man


----------



## HarryCarey (Mar 6, 2010)

sorry dont mean to be a dick too


----------



## Wetdog (Mar 6, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> You guys ever do a search? The search feature should be used before you ask the same question a millions times. Since you were participants, you know this issue was recently discussed here:
> https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/151706-uncle-bens-topping-technique-get-91.html
> 
> What is it that you don't get?
> ...


Why search and read? That's too much like skool.

Much easier to ask the same lame questions over and over and over .......

Wet


----------



## chitownsmoking (Mar 6, 2010)

first node in my book is the first set of single serrated leaves. second node is above that usually the first set of 3 fingerd leaves, but sometimes in some strain you will get 2 sets of single serrtaed leaves...


----------



## newbiebob (Mar 7, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> I get that reading comprehension is not your strongest suit, and that some of you guys are too lazy to read or do a search. I explained in plain English what I consider the first true node in consideration of topping at the page I linked you to plus a scattering of photos including those on the first page. This isn't rocket science. If you can't get such a simple concept after I and many others explained in text and multiple pictures then I suggest you try another hobby or method of training.
> 
> UB


what a douche !!!!!
i understand not being a cock is not your strong suit. However, I am not sure why someone asking a question to be thorough is offensive to you?
But since it is ...
i got an idea ...
dont answer it !!

and another thing smart guy
if everyone keeps asking the same question over and over 
maybe you didnt explain it as clearly as you think


put that in your pipe and smoke it 
you punk.

All i want to do is learn as much as i can. If you dont have anything positive to contribute then dont contribute.

the idea that someone posting a question (among the thousands of questions posted a day) is somehow offensive or somehow ruining your day is ridiculous. get over yourself.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 7, 2010)

newbiebob said:


> All i want to do is learn as much as i can.


Then read the goddamn thread! It's that simple.

UB


----------



## newbiebob (Mar 7, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Then read the goddamn thread! It's that simple.
> 
> UB


Good morning ben
i see i was totally wrong about you.
thanks for giving me one last golden nugget of knowledge.
i cant tell you how helpfull you have been.
Good thing there is people like you on this site to help the newcomers out.

thanks again


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 7, 2010)

newbiebob said:


> Good morning ben
> i see i was totally wrong about you.
> thanks for giving me one last golden nugget of knowledge.
> i cant tell you how helpfull you have been.
> ...


NP. Kinda amazing what all is covered on page 1 and 2, eh.


----------



## lostinspace (Mar 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Here is another that won't bother to read. Clue - read the last page of my topping thread.
> 
> Sheesh!


Ben, that wasn't helpful. Not only does the last page of your topping thread not mention staggered nodes (did you really mean the last page - page 185?), the first page (main post) doesn't seem to mention them either. I even read in a little ways - so please trust me that the answer isn't obvious.

I read your topping post - great info - a long time ago. My question was actually for clarification. It's really great that you wrote such a helpful guide, and I've seen many other contributions around here - you've given a lot. Thanks for all of that!

However, simply telling people to read isn't that helpful. My question has been bugging me for a while. I search for it here and other places often. And now, nobody will answer it here, because of your comments. 

I understand that seeing the same crap over and over is annoying, but perhaps you could just ignore the threads that annoy you. I'm really not trying to be disrespectful - I apologize if it seems that way.

Can anyone answer my original question? Do the standard topping techniques work as well for staggered (non-opposing) nodes? 

Thanks!


----------



## Wetdog (Mar 9, 2010)

lostinspace said:


> Can anyone answer my original question? Do the standard topping techniques work as well for staggered (non-opposing) nodes?
> 
> Thanks!


YES!!!!!!!

Wet


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 9, 2010)

lostinspace said:


> Ben, that wasn't helpful. Not only does the last page of your topping thread not mention staggered nodes (did you really mean the last page - page 185?), the first page (main post) doesn't seem to mention them either. I even read in a little ways - so please trust me that the answer isn't obvious.
> 
> .........Can anyone answer my original question? Do the standard topping techniques work as well for staggered (non-opposing) nodes?


 https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/151706-uncle-bens-topping-technique-get-92.html


----------



## pattystaff89 (Mar 9, 2010)

All i can tell anyone is that i read UB's thread over and over. I have topped with his method multiple times now, i almost always get 4 colas, occasionally i get a plant with 8 or 12 colas (hahah) but i believe it is due to my own negligence. If you read the thread and follow it correctly, you will be happy with your 4 colas, trust me. As for the guy/gal above asking about staggering nodes, topping that will work just as well. I suggest you search and watch the I Grow Chronic video series on youtube. In his first week of flowering he tops the plant (that has staggering nodes) and ends up with two colas as opposed to one. He didn't use UB's method, but i mean hey to each his own right? Top with UB's method and you will not regret it, if you lst the plant prior to topping it may alter the amount of colas that you get. btw UB you brought my avg plant harvest up from 9 g's to 19 g's (i have a mini sog) Thanks a bunch Ben!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 10, 2010)

pattystaff89 said:


> In his first week of flowering he tops the plant (that has staggering nodes) and ends up with two colas as opposed to one. He didn't use UB's method, but i mean hey to each his own right?


You might get 2 colas, but one will definately be THE dominant cola, it's an apical dominance thingie. Glad things are working out for you!

Good luck,
UB


----------



## genuity (Mar 10, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Quite the contrary - it's time to put down the bowl and read with a clear head.


 very well said+rep


----------



## PANGcake (Mar 10, 2010)

lostinspace said:


> Ben, that wasn't helpful. Not only does the last page of your topping thread not mention staggered nodes (did you really mean the last page - page 185?), the first page (main post) doesn't seem to mention them either. I even read in a little ways - so please trust me that the answer isn't obvious.
> 
> I read your topping post - great info - a long time ago. My question was actually for clarification. It's really great that you wrote such a helpful guide, and I've seen many other contributions around here - you've given a lot. Thanks for all of that!
> 
> ...


You are right. I spent a good amount of time in UB's thread topping for 2 or 4 main colas, I read up on cultivation myself, google and RIU are my best friends =) but i didnt find anything on staggered nodes, all i found was something like "works fine on clones too"...I read a lot in that thread but just didn't find that special post bout the staggered nodes  I topped 9 plants, clones 5-6 nodes tall w staggered nodes, using UB's tec. and 4 of them are growing 4 colas, 2 of them 3, 2 of them 2 and 1 is growing 1 new main cola...so I guess it works if ur lucky, I still say go for it cuz they have grown sooo bushy 

To conclude: doesn't work fer sure on staggered nodes but plants still get bushy  So far I'd say the outcome is 50/50 topping plants w staggered nodes, I posted some pics of my topped clones in UB's thread, its far back, page 180-185 I guess?!

//CaL

edit: If u read this UB, can you maybe put that stuff bout the staggered nodes in your first post, its such a long thread?  If u can't cuz ur not a moderater, (as I think u are?) ask a moderator to do it since it's a Sticky...that is if u have time


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 10, 2010)

PANGcake said:


> ..... but i didnt find anything on staggered nodes, all i found was something like "works fine on clones too"...


With a caveat, if the nodes are staggered which they usually are, it won't work as intended. That's been mentioned in the thread.



> edit: If u read this UB, can you maybe put that stuff bout the staggered nodes in your first post, its such a long thread?  If u can't cuz ur not a moderater, (as I think u are?) ask a moderator to do it since it's a Sticky...that is if u have time


RIU does not allow thread starters to edit their threads for some odd reason. I recently wrote several mods including potroast about this issue, as I am willing to put a question/answer thingie in the first post so the redundant questions are kept to a minimum. He said he would forward my concerns to RIU. So far, nothing. I mentioned this recently in the topping thread but it seems like few are willing to do their homework around here.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Mar 10, 2010)

lostinspace said:


> Ben, that wasn't helpful. Not only does the last page of your topping thread not mention staggered nodes


I copied pictures into my post, #1823, to make the point. What does it take, a slap up side the head for you to get it?


----------



## Wetdog (Mar 10, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> I copied pictures into my post, #1823, to make the point. What does it take, a slap up side the head for you to get it?


Apparently so.

Cut the fucking top off and OBSERVE your plant.

Haven't you ever trimmed a tree or clipped a hedge or pinched a Basil plant?

Quit trying to complicate the simple.

It's just a fucking plant.

Wet


----------



## lostinspace (Mar 10, 2010)

Thanks for the info, guys - yes, it is clear now.


----------



## shadow420 (Mar 11, 2010)

Ben your a dick how are you going to get all pussy hurt cause some noobie doesnt want to read through your 185 pg thread and if you can't understand that then fuck off


----------



## genuity (Mar 11, 2010)

shadow420 said:


> Ben your a dick how are you going to get all pussy hurt cause some noobie doesnt want to read through your 185 pg thread and if you can't understand that then fuck off


sounds like someone has some kandy in they mouth that needs




out,how dare you dis someone who is so helpful,with his post,you should say sorry now befor it is to late


----------



## Wetdog (Mar 11, 2010)

shadow420 said:


> Ben your a dick how are you going to get all pussy hurt cause some noobie doesnt want to read through your 185 pg thread and if you can't understand that then fuck off


You are, what we would say at UF, a true FLAMING ASSHOLE!

All you (he), needed to do was read the first 2 or 3 pages of the thread.

But, then again, I guess it's beyond the 'Dick and Jane' level still being aspired to.

Judging from most of your posts, you could stand to do a bit more reading instead of running your shithole of a mouth.

Wet


----------



## captain insaneo (Mar 12, 2010)

I got one easier look at cybersecks' avatar imo it is not the next set of leaves but the one after that.


NOW FOR THE LOVE OF GOD secks dont EVER change your avatar or like 6 months to years from now, you will have changed your avatar to like i dont know... ren from ren and stempy, whilest he is wizing on the electric fence. Because some random person is going to think damn the capt'n blew his fuse and has gone one toke over the line, SWEET JESUS....
but if you do change it I suggest naked lady(ies)...


----------



## plaguedog (Mar 13, 2010)

Every time I see someone bring up how long bens topping thread is I just laugh.

READ THE FIRST FEW PAGES, and if you have any comprehension skills at all you will get it.


----------



## newbiebob (Dec 31, 2010)

this shit cracks me up

i like reading old threads 
apparently there are stupid questions lol


----------



## cheddar1985 (Dec 31, 2010)

uncle ben this uncle ben that shit stinks lads trust me it is nt uncle bens technique it was done long be4 uncle ben was around trust me do your fuckin homework lol!! 
sorry sir uncle ben but it fucks me off wen people stick to people like shit and jump in on people that find it hard to understand a method that has been around 4 years a little help is all that is needed not a cocky knob that thinks his ways are gospel trust me wen you drop the high and mighty you ll find people would respect you a little more.
another tip trying diffrent methods and techniques yourself goes along way some do it some dont those that dont get left behind but those that do go along way trust me bein stuck in a rut is no joy the world is your oyster get out there and do it and you ll never regret it when the end is close.
sorry for the rant 
ps uncle ben neva done shit to me and this post is not exactly directed at him but the pricks that think he is god for showing them a simple method 
all the best to all ya chedder1985


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 31, 2010)

Happy New Year to the folks that get it and to the lame brains that won't. 

UB


----------



## Anjinsan (Dec 31, 2010)

I do not know UB. But...

&#8226; you want to learn about a technique that UB does and outlines very well in a thread.

&#8226; The question you asked is VERY clearly discussed in said thread.

&#8226;*UB comes onto your thread to hand you the link to it. 

&#8226; UB is somehow a dick? 

I get why UB was getting pissy with you. I'd of been too. 

BTW I've read the thread in question a few times. 
Atleast the first 2 or 3 pages of it. That is where all
the info that is important is.

Happy New Year Everyone.


----------



## Killer Vanilla (Dec 31, 2010)

wow uncle bens a real uptight assholeee


----------



## shrigpiece (Dec 31, 2010)

Uncle ben is alright mate, Assholes tend to not want to inherit a bit of knowledge that is kindly offered to them. 
PEACE


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 31, 2010)

cheddar1985 said:


> uncle ben this uncle ben that shit stinks lads trust me it is nt uncle bens technique it was done long be4 uncle ben was around trust me do your fuckin homework lol!!


Evidently you have done your homework. So, who was the first to post this method of topping on any cannabis growing site? If you know Uncle Ben wasn't the first then you know who was the first. Who was it?

Sure, some horticulturalist might have discovered it working with other types of plants back in 1937 or 1952 or in 1978 or whenever, but who found it worked exactly the same on cannabis and who brought it to the cannabis growing sites first? 

Evidently you know who was the very first to discover that it worked on plant and also who was the first to discover that it worked equally well on cannabis plants and who was then the very first one to tell cannabis growers about it, or else you would not be saying; "it is nt uncle bens technique it was done long be4 uncle ben was around trust me do your fuckin homework lol!!" 

So who where they? What did your; "homework" teach you? 



> sorry sir uncle ben but it fucks me off wen people stick to people like shit and jump in on people that find it hard to understand a method that has been around 4 years a little help is all that is needed not a cocky knob that thinks his ways are gospel trust me wen you drop the high and mighty you ll find people would respect you a little more.
> another tip trying diffrent methods and techniques yourself goes along way some do it some dont those that dont get left behind but those that do go along way trust me bein stuck in a rut is no joy the world is your oyster get out there and do it and you ll never regret it when the end is close.


People that understand horticulture, meaning actual true proven plant related science, people who understand plant functions and plant actions and reactions and know them to be true because they are scientifically proven facts tend to believe them more than what someone playing mad Dr. Ganjastein in their basement or closet or store room or spare room or garage or greenhouse or backyard tried and thinks he discovered too be better, but that runs totally totally contrary to scientifically proven facts. 

For some reason the puppies of today think that anything and everything has to be new and different and modern for it to be the best and that anything and everything with some age on it is old school and out of date and out of touch. They want and need to believe that scientifically proven facts have expiration dates on them like a gallon of milk.

All you puppies out there who incorrectly believe that new and different and modern equates to being better need to learn one thing. There's no school like old school, and on RIU Uncle Ben is the fucking headmaster.


----------



## shrigpiece (Dec 31, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> Evidently you have done your homework. So, who was the first to post this method of topping on any cannabis growing site? If you know Uncle Ben wasn't the first then you know who was the first. Who was it?
> 
> Sure, some horticulturalist might have discovered it working with other types of plants back in 1937 or 1952 or in 1978 or whenever, but who found it worked exactly the same on cannabis and who brought it to the cannabis growing sites first?
> 
> ...


You know what brick i wish i had the typing stamina you have got. Bravo old boy. PS im the student


----------



## cheddar1985 (Dec 31, 2010)

bricktop im no follower and neva will be i like to be my own headmaster unlike some muppets i believe it was found to be a method on cannabis by mistake my point is that topping was done long be4 uncle ben did his homework on cannabis. old school is a art and always will be but its not the be all and end all of cannabis cultivation just like readin your plants reactions its not fuckin hard trust me. uncle ben does things his way and i do it mine but thats not to say he or i do things wrong.there are many ways to skin a cat.
the dr ganjastein you call upon are the 1s that bring these methods to light and fair fuckin play to them who would of thought of stripping fan leaves off cannabis plants would increase yeilds ? but it does if done correctly and i can vouch for it, just the same as pinching (fimming) is better for mother plants than topping is.
my homework taught me enough to supply me with wot i do and im greatfull for it but the ones that think they are the be all and end all of cannabis cultivation are terribly wrong believe me come back in ten years time and there will be hundreds of uncle ben you call the headmaster lol
atb in the new year and may cannibis cultivation grow as it is today 
cheddar1985


----------



## LVTDY (Dec 31, 2010)

cheddar1985 said:


> I believe it was found to be a method on cannabis by mistake


You're thinkin' FIM.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 31, 2010)

cheddar1985 said:


> there are many ways to skin a cat.



Not when you are dealing with proven facts and if you want the best results possible. 

People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You can believe the world is flat and the moon is made of blue cheese if you want ... but when you start telling other people things like that as if they are facts ... that is just plain wrong and it should not be done. 

Sites like this are supposed to be for learning facts about the very best way to grow, they are supposed to be educational, and not debating societies where people discuss, or argue, what they prefer to believe rather than believe proven facts. 

Cannabis plants are not really all that different from other plants, other maybe than their are tougher than most plants and they produce cannabinoids that will get a person high. Just like other plants they perform certain functions and when things happen to them or are done to them they will react in the very same ways. 

As much as growers who totally lack any true botanical education want and need and love to believe that cannabis plants somehow magically and mystically exist outside the realm of horticultural science and that proven facts, even proven facts that were found while researching cannabis plants, do not in any way apply to them, they are incorrect. 

As much as many growers want and need and love to believe that anything and everything new is always better than something older, that older equates to out of date, out of touch, as being inferior, there is no expiration date on scientifically proven facts. Just because something was not thought up yesterday or last month or in the last year or two does not make it any less valid, any less factual than it was on the day it was proven to be factual. 

No matter how much they love to believe that someone fiddling around in their basement or store room or closet or spare room or garage or in a cabinet or a PC case or a greenhouse or their backyard happened to stumble across something that highly educated people whose life work it is to research plants, including some whose research specializes in cannabis plants, somehow managed to miss ... it just doesn't happen. It is a myth just as their supposed amazing findings and reasons they claim for them are myths.

Many growers share something in common. They are desperate and they are gullible. They are desperate to find a way to squeeze even just a few more grams from what they grow and to squeeze even just a tiny bit more potency from that they grow and that makes them gullible. It makes them open to every crackpot claim and snake oil salesman pitch about how some 'new' growing method or some product works like a miracle and is the greatest thing since sliced bread .. or sex maybe. 

If growers would attend horticulture classes at their local college or Jr. college, if they are offered, and then apply what they learn there to their cannabis growing, their success rate would go way up, the number of problems they would have to deal with would go way down and the quality of what they grow would go up and their yields would go way up.

But for some reason many growers are education phobic. Education and them mix together about as well as a cobra and a mongoose. 

Someone comes along who actually knows what they are talking about and offers others very good advice, and they reject it, but then some little clown shoe who hardly knows enough to be capable of growing fungus between his toes tells them some incredibly wild fanciful absurdity and they instantly accept it, they are on it faster than a duck on a June bug .. and then they parrot it over and over and over again as if it is a fact. 

Each time that is done someone makes the critical error of believing them and then they pay the price, then they suffer the consequences, their learning curve goes flat-line.

Sites like this should be storehouses of knowledge and educational sites, but sadly most are universities of ignorance where myths and urban legends and misconceptions and inaccuracies and half-truths and old hippie folklore and fads and voodoo growing techniques spread from person to person like a plague and the infected make their best attempt to defend their absurdities against proven facts, and never give in and never admit that they are wrong.

I find that to be sad, shameful and at times flat out disheartening. When I see someone who needs help, who needs good solid factual advice, and they receive, say, 20 replies and among the 20 there are only 2 replies that are accurate, but because of the preponderance of inaccurate replies the person who needs help goes with the inaccurate replies, simply because they figure since more people say it's this way or that way, then they must be right, it sometimes makes me think growers would be much better off if sites like this were never created. They would be much better off purchasing a few good growing books and Googling for proven true facts and taking a course or two than taking the inane advice that many on sites like this dispense.


----------



## newbiebob (Jan 1, 2011)

wow 
lot of passion on this thread


----------



## farmboss (Jan 1, 2011)

not only does topping redistribute the auxins.

it redistributes all those "banned in USA" chemical enhanchers we all love.

CHEMICALS FTW!


----------



## Unequalibrium (Jan 2, 2011)

Let me interrupt your uncle ben worship for a moment. His topping thread was started on 01-17-2009. I've been reading cannabis culture, high times, and such since around 1992, and topping has been discussed in there more times than I can count. Don't act like Uncle Ben dug up some lost relic of information and was nice enough to share it with people in 2009 via the internet. I've read tons of your posts and they are all very well spoken and to the point. But this stuff about UB being the first to distribute that information on the internet is absurd.




Brick Top said:


> Evidently you have done your homework. So, who was the first to post this method of topping on any cannabis growing site? If you know Uncle Ben wasn't the first then you know who was the first. Who was it?
> 
> Sure, some horticulturalist might have discovered it working with other types of plants back in 1937 or 1952 or in 1978 or whenever, but who found it worked exactly the same on cannabis and who brought it to the cannabis growing sites first?
> 
> ...


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jan 2, 2011)

Unequalibrium said:


> Let me interrupt your uncle ben worship for a moment. His topping thread was started on 01-17-2009. I've been reading cannabis culture, high times, and such since around 1992, and topping has been discussed in there more times than I can count. Don't act like Uncle Ben dug up some lost relic of information and was nice enough to share it with people in 2009 via the internet. I've read tons of your posts and they are all very well spoken and to the point. But this stuff about UB being the first to distribute that information on the internet is absurd.


This is funny. Topping comes in many disguises, with different results.

Actually, the first informational post in ANY cannabis forum on my topping technique to induce 4 main colas was at a site called cannabis.com many years ago. Guys like Arjan of Greenhouse Seeds read that thread and adopted the procedure. 

It's not rocket science. It's all about hormonal responses.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jan 2, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> Not when you are dealing with proven facts and if you want the best results possible.
> 
> People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You can believe the world is flat and the moon is made of blue cheese if you want ... but when you start telling other people things like that as if they are facts ... that is just plain wrong and it should not be done.
> 
> ...


You nailed it bro.

Happy New Year.


----------



## Pipe Dream (Jan 2, 2011)

Pipe Dream said:


> the first set of leaves is round...the second set is jagged but only one leaf....the third set is the true set with more than one leaf per side usually like 3 leaves and more every set.


I was totally wrong.  
Wish I would have been corrected instead of having to learn the hard way. Sorry for the misinformation.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jan 2, 2011)

Pipe Dream said:


> I was totally wrong.
> Wish I would have been corrected instead of having to learn the hard way. Sorry for the misinformation.


With first hand experience comes understanding of the growth phases of cannabis. Cannabis must go thru a juvenile stage before adulthood.


----------



## dlively11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> There's no school like old school, and on RIU Uncle Ben is the fucking headmaster.


Yeah and we all know who his little school girl is in this forum, lol .......


----------



## Brick Top (Jan 2, 2011)

Unequalibrium said:


> Let me interrupt your uncle ben worship for a moment. *His topping thread was started on 01-17-2009.*


That was here .. on this site .. but Uncle Ben goes back a lot farther online on sites like this than just his time on this site. 

You seem to fail to realize that RIU is not, or was not the first online growing site nor the first that Uncle Ben has been a member of. We have been on several together, we're you there with us and know what was discussed? 

Before that we were each on different boards, but still both of goes back many years online and on many sites, most, if not all now defunct. Do you have any idea of what Uncle Ben was saying online all those years ago on all those various other sites, or do you only know what he has said since; "01-17-2009."

Before you reply be sure to remove your foot from your mouth. It will make admitting that you do not have a clue about what Uncle Ben was saying on other sites over the years previous to; "01-17-2009" easier to get out.


----------



## dlively11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> Not when you are dealing with proven facts and if you want the best results possible.
> 
> People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You can believe the world is flat and the moon is made of blue cheese if you want ... but when you start telling other people things like that as if they are facts ... that is just plain wrong and it should not be done.
> 
> ...


You and UB are complete contraditctions. According to you two everything there is to know about growing cannibas has already been written decades ago and there are no improvements to be made. Then you guys come in here acting like UB invented how to make multiple colas...... It really is amusing to say the least. You two are ALWAYS the first to pop into threads and tear people apart for trying something that isnt "old school" and blab on and on about all your botanical scientifially proven facts etc etc etc. Gets really old. People come on this forum to learn. Just because you know how to grow "old school" doesnt mean you cant learn a thing or two yourself about growing. You two need to stop acting like you are better then everyone elsebecause clearly you are not. 

Oh and UB you came across as a real J*RK to the OP who was simply trying to gain knowledge. If everyone on this forum acted like you there would be nothing on this forum but people getting replies of "read the book newbie !!" Damn sad fellas.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jan 3, 2011)

dlively11 said:


> You and UB are complete contraditctions. According to you two everything there is to know about growing cannibas has already been written decades ago and there are no improvements to be made.


You can not reinvent the wheel. Gimmicks and trends is another story.



> Then you guys come in here acting like UB invented how to make multiple colas......


I'll explain, reaaaaaaaaaal slow so you might be able to git it. I never said I invented anything regarding making "multiple colas" which can be and is usually done by topping above the 8th node. About 15 years ago I posted a thread which showed how to train a prospective one cola plant into EITHER 2 main colas or four.

Got it?



> You two are ALWAYS the first to pop into threads and tear people apart for trying something that isnt "old school" and blab on and on about all your botanical scientifially proven facts etc etc etc. Gets really old.


Removing the very unit that produces bud is not new, IT'S STUPID. You know what gets old? Explaining what makes a plant tick to every new crop of noobs like you. BT and I have been doing this since you was messin' in your drawers.



> People come on this forum to learn.


Yeah, they come away with a lot of crap too. One must consider the source, and popular opinion and, ill founded paradigms will get you into trouble every time.



> Oh and UB you came across as a real J*RK to the OP who was simply trying to gain knowledge. If everyone on this forum acted like you there would be nothing on this forum but people getting replies of "read the book newbie !!" Damn sad fellas.


Now......I've got a bone to pick with you and the thread starter. The question raised should have been posted in Basic, not Advanced. Obviously he has never grown a plant before or can't grasp what a node is and where it's to be found. He then goes off posting in the wrong forum. If you don't know the basics people, then you should learn them before posting the same old tired questions in a forum which is designed for "new" techniques. http://www.starterupsteve.com/swf/posting.html

UB


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 3, 2011)

Reading this made me feel like a A1 student. Never argued with veteran horticulturalists. You boys might learn something from brick top and uncle ben, hell they don't know me because i read and don't asked questions. After all they are proven facts. UB is a pro.


----------



## Brick Top (Jan 3, 2011)

dlively11 said:


> You and UB are complete contraditctions. According to you two everything there is to know about growing cannibas has already been written decades ago and there are no improvements to be made.



No, but people like you do continually attempt to spin what we say into having a different meaning so you can make false claims like you just above. 

Certain things about plants are facts, scientifically proven facts, period, three end. Just like gravity has not ceased to be a fact just because it was not thought up in some guy's basement last week, scientifically proven facts about plants remain just that, scientifically proven facts. 

It is the ignorance of many growers and their desperation for 'more and better' that causes them to be susceptible to every wacko voodoo growing method or claim that comes down the pike. 

Do you honestly believe that just because someone attempt something different in their closet grow or PC case grow or basement or attic grow that suddenly plants that have had thousands and thousands and thousands of years of evolution and genetic coding that tells them to release certain hormones at certain times in certain locations in certain amounts in response to some certain event or stage of growth will not do it or will do it totally different because some little clown shoe playing mad Dr. Ganjastein thinks he can make them do it different, or more accurately doesn't even have the slightest clue of what happens and just takes a shot in the dark not knowing what to expect and has no idea whatsoever of what sort of reaction plants will have to their insanity?

Some plant facts were discovered 100 years ago or more and no matter how many times they have been tested by more up to date modern high tech equipment the proven facts remained precisely that, facts. Do you really think that someone piddling around in a greenhouse or in their backyard or basement will come up with something totally new and different to try that not so much as one single horticulturalist ever thought to attempt over the many, many, MANY decades that plants have nee scientifically researched, and even is someone piddling around in their basement or closet did by sheer luck stumble across something different to try that they would possess the needed high tech equipment to prove their lucky finding to be fact, and of course that their piddling around would have been performed under highly controlled conditions and there would be multiple test groups run to make the needed comparisons that the needed equipment to prove actual proof would need to also test to prove what the guy piddling around thought he might have stumbled across?

Through ignorance, lack of actual education in botanical matters, many growers want and need to believe that cannabis plants are different, that because they produce cannabinoids that they are not like other plants and that proven scientific facts to not pertain to them or that because at least some of the facts were proven way back well before their grandparents were born that they no longer apply, that they are no longer valid. that the facts have gone beyond their expiration date. 

Those same people might as well go to the nearest cliff or tall building and leap off and expect to float or be able to fly thinking that because gravity is not some new discovery that it can no longer apply in the modern world of 2011. 

Are cannabis plants 100% fully understood? No. Thanks to the limitations of scientific research some things about cannabis are still mysteries. But they are things like exactly how many cannabinoids and terpenoids and flavonoids there are and the same with monoterpenoids (C10H16) and monoterpenoids (C10H180) andmonoterpene phenols (C10H14O) and sesquiterpenoids (C15H24) and aliphatic esters and hetero compounds and phenylpropanes and aromatic acids and misc compounds in cannabis plants and are there still more that have not yet been discovered and what all their functions are and how they interact with each other. No little clown shoe with a garage grow will ever unravel those remaining mysteries.

But things like Uncle Ben and I write about are not such things, they are things that have long been known to be rock solid scientifically proven facts that have been tested and retested far more than enough times to have been proven to be every bit as factual as the existence of gravity. 

It is the combination of ignorance, arrogance, desperation and gullibility that causes many growers to believe that they have or can or will discover something that near countless PhD's who specialized in or currently specialize in horticultural science and who spent, or are spending, their entire lives scientifically researching plants, including some who specialize in the scientific research of cannabis plants, that they will discover what the scientists have missed or have gotten wrong and that the closet grower will be the first to discover something and then prove it beyond any doubt to be factual. 

Again, those very same people might just as well doubt and refuse to accept the existence of gravity and leap off a tall cliff or tall building and expect to float or fly. Their odds of successfully doing so are equal to that of disproving the facts that Uncle Ben, or at times myself, write about. 

Like it or not, accept it or not, it is as much of a fact as the existence of gravity being a fact.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jan 3, 2011)

shrigpiece said:


> Reading this made me feel like a A1 student. Never argued with veteran horticulturalists. You boys might learn something from brick top and uncle ben, hell they don't know me because i read and don't asked questions. After all they are proven facts. UB is a pro.


Well, I know what teachers must have to go thru these days. Bit by bit, BT just articulated ALL aspects of this business, relative to real horticulture - the hype, the human condition, botany, etc. Before anything can be considered conclusive, the scientist will replicate the test 3 times, sometimes under different conditions but not usually. They always use strict controls, a control group to compare to. That just doesn't happen in cannabis forums.

UB


----------



## shrigpiece (Jan 3, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> Well, I know what teachers must have to go thru these days. Bit by bit, BT just articulated ALL aspects of this business, relative to real horticulture - the hype, the human condition, botany, etc. Before anything can be considered conclusive, the scientist will replicate the test 3 times, sometimes under different conditions but not usually. They always use strict controls, a control group to compare to. That just doesn't happen in cannabis forums.
> 
> UB


 Can't argue with that, maybe i should have worded it proven technique. PEACE and thanks for the insight


----------



## dlively11 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bricktop and UB, you two are birds of a feather that is for sure. What do you think chopping your plants to create more colas is doing ? Sure sounds like someone in " little clown shoe playing mad Dr. Ganjastein " at work to me ..... But I guess since its you two supporting this its okay to accept it despite the "thousands and thousand and thousands of years evolution and genetic coding " the plant already had. Funny how you two never see how clearly you contradict yourselves. Accodring to your posts the plants already know what to do. Why then give them artificial light? Why give them HPS lighting over floros, why give them anything other then dirt fro your backyard, why add CO2 or fans , why do a SCROG why do a SOG ??? List goes on and on. I'll spell the answer out for you two really SLOWLY .... To increase the productivity of our plants. Thinking you can not improve on a given technique is short sighted and arrogant. UB cutting the tops to increase his cola count is done for one purpose and that is to increase production for a given style of grow. No different then someone doing a full SOG to get many large colas. Despite what you two would like to believe doing full SOG require leaf removal to geet the really high yields period. It is only YOUR opinion that removing leaves under these circumstances decreases yield since neither of you two have any experience in it. You guys think you are so much better then everyone else in here. You grow your way I grow mine. I have grown your way in the past but have since moved on to much more successful techniques giving me MUCH higher yields with the same strains, same enviroment same nutes same everything. I personally grew thousands of plants both ways in the last year and a 100% increase in yield isnt an "opinion" like you two like to spin it. Fact is it yields much much higher then you two are able to yield with your own methods. Does it make your method wrong, nope just not as efficient. Ever stop to think perhaps you get less yields because of narrowminded views of horticulture ? I take zero credit for my techinique. I picked it up from other very succesfull growers on this and other boards. YOU two are the ones always trying to twist, distort and bash the PROVEN facts of actual growers. You two have a lot more to learn then you realize. Fortunatly for you two , you will never realize this fact. 


Guy comes in here seeking knowledge and you two take a big dump all over him. Really nice fellas ...... Could just keep your mouths shut instead you know or actually try and help him .....


----------



## dlively11 (Jan 3, 2011)

Uncle Ben said:


> Well, I know what teachers must have to go thru these days. Bit by bit, BT just articulated ALL aspects of this business, relative to real horticulture - the hype, the human condition, botany, etc. Before anything can be considered conclusive, the scientist will replicate the test 3 times, sometimes under different conditions but not usually. They always use strict controls, a control group to compare to. That just doesn't happen in cannabis forums.
> 
> UB


Yet how many times have you totally dismissed the FACT that I did thousands of test plants very controlled and came up with a very consistant and very large increase in my yields utilizing leaf removal ? 50-120 plants at a time per tray with the same nutrients, same air, same medium same genetics and it just gets called "opinion not fact, very unscientific " etc etc etc by you and Bricktop ........ Oh not to mention MANY others having the same results as myself. Try to open your minds and be more respectful of other members, would really be a lot more productive in this comunity. You really ripped this poor OP a new one for asking a very valid question. Not nice but not surprising given how you come across in other threads. LOL funny thing is I recently tried removing less leaves questioning my self a little after all the stuff you two posted and my yields went right back down while they remained the same consistantly high yields on my other trays just as before. I know I know a couple thousand plants grown one way compared to another couple thousand isnt really controlled ,scientific or meaningful in any shape way or form just a bunch of opinionated nonsense. lol......


----------



## dudemandigo (Jan 3, 2011)

id like more info on the leaf stripping method


----------



## daddiefatsacks (Jan 10, 2011)

U guys are way too up tight! Smoke some of your product and listen to this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg-k3Lv8W9k


----------



## ghb (Jan 10, 2011)

hey you gotta give it up, they have been dealing with noob growers for years trying to tell them that they don't know it all, they still don't get tired and stop trying to tell people where they are going wrong. thats real determination, i d'oth my cap to the veterans


----------



## 420Bosco (Feb 17, 2012)

*

Here's my attempt at UB's technique http://youtu.be/_wYTcIgy2DA​
​
*


----------

