# Defoliation and CO2



## Gamabunta (Dec 25, 2016)

I'm on day 24 in flower, did some defoliation during the vegetative period and a quite heavy defoliation on day 22. I'll do some light defoliation if necessary up until around day 45 and then I'll defoliate heavy again. I have CO2 tank, but it only lasts ~2 days and I can only afford to refill it once, so I'll add extra CO2 for 4-5 days
When is the best time to do this?
Everything else is dialed in and looking good.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Dec 25, 2016)

man, hate to say this to you on christmas morn, but you are all screwed up. I won't get into the importance of the leaves, but forget the c02. if you don't do it right, don't do it at all and you aren't even close to doing it right.


----------



## Dumme (Dec 25, 2016)

Lol, CO2 requires leaves to work there bud...

Thats like going to the hospital, hooking up an oxygen tank via face mask to a guy with no lungs...

Dont remove any leaves unless they have nicrosis.


----------



## DemonTrich (Dec 25, 2016)

If you just run co2 for a week or so, it like eating 1x a week for yourself and nothing else. Total waste of money and co2.


----------



## NaturalFarmer (Dec 25, 2016)

Two days on a tank? How big of an area and can you seal it up any better?


----------



## Dumme (Dec 25, 2016)

You don't need CO2 without any leaves, as you plant can't use it, but beyond that, lets say you didnt defoliate, CO2 is a waste unless you seal your room 
*and*
your lighting/nutrients reflect the need for it.

I recommend saving it until you possess the proper knowledge, and save yourself some money.


----------



## DemonTrich (Dec 25, 2016)

One more thing, hope you have extremely stable genetics to be defoliating once in flower, especially that late into it. I forsee a stressed out plant throwing many nanners.


----------



## Gamabunta (Dec 25, 2016)

It's a 170fl oz tank with a regulator and a controller with a built-in photocell that automatically activates the unit only during the day, will run it at 1000-1200ppm. The tent is 10'x10'x6,6 and it's as sealed as it can get.
This is not my first grow, and like I said everything is dialed in and looking good. I'm just extremely limited for how long I can run CO2 this time and want to make to most of the little time I got.
My first time with defoliation though and the plants have responded well during the grow.
As far as I know the whole plant uses photosynthesis, not just the leafs. They are not stripped totally naked, there are leafs left, but I would consider them to be quite heavy defoliated.


----------



## DemonTrich (Dec 25, 2016)

Leaves are like solar panels. No leaves, the plant is unable to utilize photosynthesis. How would a tree or plant use photosynthesis with out the leaves to absorb the light? 

Might as well as ray Charles to drive you to the store. With it crashing. And a tent can never be sealed. Take a peak with light on inside, dark outside the tent. See all those light leaks, those will now be co2 leaks. Plus a 170oz tank won't last but 1 to 2 days at 1200, even 1000ppm. 

It what do we all know. I only been growing for 4+yrs, 2+ with co2 and sealed dialed in bang out harvests every run after run after run. 

But merry christmas. Didn't mean to be a grin chaos on your going parade.


----------



## NaturalFarmer (Dec 25, 2016)

If you are looking to get the most out of CO2, it is best utilized at a higher temp and in Veg. 83 degrees seems to be the ticket in my eyes. In flower, I drop temps and CO2. Try to seal the room the the tent is in? A well sheetrocked room will get you much further. I wouldn't recommend it for safety but you could try wrapping the outside of your tent in poly and tape it with Sheathing tape (tuck tape). The shit will peel your fingerprints, so I wouldn't expect to get it off anything you stick it to though (ie. your tent).


Best bet is to get everything dialed in and then build a room THEN get CO2. Otherwise you are just wasting money with little gain.

What lights are you running?


----------



## Dumme (Dec 25, 2016)

Gamabunta said:


> It's a 170fl oz tank with a regulator and a controller with a built-in photocell that automatically activates the unit only during the day, will run it at 1000-1200ppm. The tent is 10'x10'x6,6 and it's as sealed as it can get.
> This is not my first grow, and like I said everything is dialed in and looking good. I'm just extremely limited for how long I can run CO2 this time and want to make to most of the little time I got.
> My first time with defoliation though and the plants have responded well during the grow.
> As far as I know the whole plant uses photosynthesis, not just the leafs. They are not stripped totally naked, there are leafs left, but I would consider them to be quite heavy defoliated.


Just because you can dig a 10ft hole with a spoon, doesn't make it the tool for the job.

Plants require leaves to survive, and fruit well. You want larger yield? ..then stop doing what those shwazzing bullshitters say while taking advantage of the noobs @$500 a pop, and learn REAL science behind how plants work.

Leaves are required in many areas of the plant beyond photosynthesis, for instance, the number one reason "transpiration" works is because the stoma, located within the leaf. Do you like the fact that your plant uptakes nutrients? That's mostly because of leaves. Where do you think the plant exchanges CO2 and O2? The last thing you need is having your cannabis plant do photorespiration.


----------



## NaturalFarmer (Dec 25, 2016)

Dumme said:


> REAL science behind how plants work.
> 
> Leaves are required in many areas of the plant beyond photosynthesis, for instance, the number one reason "transpiration" works is because the stoma, located within the leaf. Do you like the fact that your plant uptakes nutrients? That's mostly because of leaves. Where do you think the plant exchanges CO2 and O2?



Plant respiration happens in the mitochondria of each plant cell. Half of the plants respiration occurs under the soil.


----------



## Dumme (Dec 25, 2016)

NaturalFarmer said:


> Plant respiration happens in the mitochondria of each plant cell. Half of the plants respiration occurs under the soil.


Thx, but I'm aware of how plants work. With the lack of stomata & leaves, CO2 level 'will' be low and photorespiration will occur.


----------



## Odin* (Dec 26, 2016)

Dumme said:


> Lol, CO2 requires leaves to work there bud...
> 
> Thats like going to the hospital, hooking up an oxygen tank via face mask to a guy with no lungs...
> 
> ...




If you have a perfectly healthy plant whose leaves undergo senescence, it's in your best interest (and hers), if you "leaf" them be ("typo" intended).


----------



## rickyrozayyy (Jan 6, 2017)

Yes to both bro... any pics?


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Just because you can dig a 10ft hole with a spoon, doesn't make it the tool for the job.
> 
> Plants require leaves to survive, and fruit well. You want larger yield? ..then stop doing what those shwazzing bullshitters say while taking advantage of the noobs @$500 a pop, and learn REAL science behind how plants work.
> 
> Leaves are required in many areas of the plant beyond photosynthesis, for instance, the number one reason "transpiration" works is because the stoma, located within the leaf. Do you like the fact that your plant uptakes nutrients? That's mostly because of leaves. Where do you think the plant exchanges CO2 and O2? The last thing you need is having your cannabis plant do photorespiration.


if ur growing out doors yes leave ur leaves on but indoor is a different story .. sure u can leave em on but its not as good as taking em off .. defoliating is the way to grow indoor for sure... .. lol dont believe me ,i suggest doing more research on this topic.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> if ur growing out doors yes leave ur leaves on but indoor is a different story .. sure u can leave em on but its not as good as taking em off .. defoliating is the way to grow indoor for sure... .. lol dont believe me ,i suggest doing more research on this topic.


A plant is a plant, nothing changes if moved inside. Transpiration, photosynthesis, osmosis, and cell devision all work the same.. 

Maybe you should do some research yourself, and not just from hippies or empirical observation or social conformity, but real science..


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> A plant is a plant, nothing changes if moved inside. Transpiration, photosynthesis, osmosis, and cell devision all work the same..
> 
> Maybe you should do some research yourself, and not just from hippies or empirical observation or social conformity, but real science..


ur the one getting advise from an outdoor old school hippie bro lol fuck jorge cervantez lol.. ill make it easy for u to learn buddy . go to growweedeasy.com and search defoliating lol proof is in the pudding ... see that pic i got on my pro thats what defoliating does for u .wanna see the harvest vids,pics. i got proof .what do u have?


----------



## KryptoBud (Jun 4, 2017)

Any side by side pics or vidoes of defoliated vs non defoliated plants?


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> ur the one getting advise from an outdoor old school hippie bro lol fuck jorge cervantez lol.. ill make it easy for u to learn buddy . go to growweedeasy.com and search defoliating lol proof is in the pudding ... see that pic i got on my pro thats what defoliating does for u .wanna see the harvest vids,pics. i got proof .what do u have?


I didn't learn what I know from jorge, "bro". I posted jorge because simply because some people do. I personally learnt by college, and attending lectures.

Growweedeasy is filled to the brim with pseudoscience.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

KryptoBud said:


> Any side by side pics or vidoes of defoliated vs non defoliated plants?


I have a study planned for late 2017, but I believe @RM3 has some.


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

KryptoBud said:


> Any side by side pics or vidoes of defoliated vs non defoliated plants?


these are two seperate grows i did ,wich one do u think got defoliated lol


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> these are two seperate grows i did ,wich one do u think got defoliated lol


Two separate grows.. no more information needed..


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> these are two seperate grows i did ,wich one do u think got defoliated lol


as u can clearly see when u defoliate u get more buds and much larger bottom growth.. i also ran co2 on both grows .


----------



## KryptoBud (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I have a study planned for late 2017, but I believe @RM3 has some.


I think i've seen RM3's pics. If I'm thinking of the same grow his where done with seed not clone. I'm sure the end result would be the same whether seed or clone.


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Two separate grows.. no more information needed..


two separate grows that were grown identi


Dumme said:


> Two separate grows.. no more information needed..


two separate grows that were grown the same exact way, except one was defoliated . here's my proof and comparison, where's ur proof to ur claims?


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> two separate grows that were grown identi
> 
> two separate grows that were grown the same exact way, except one was defoliated . here's my proof and comparison, where's ur proof to ur claims?


It's called an impasse. You believe what ever you want, based on pseudoscience, and I'll keep believing real science, based on fact.

It's time to stop called me back in here for this bs. Its a thread thats a half year old. Troll someone else..


----------



## KryptoBud (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> these are two seperate grows i did ,wich one do u think got defoliated lol


The first pic looks over watered and under fed. The second looks defoliated and the purple stems look deficient. I think you would have yielded better with healthy plants defoliated or not.


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

KryptoBud said:


> The first pic looks over watered and under fed. The second looks defoliated and the purple stems look deficient. I think you would have yielded better with healthy plants defoliated or not.


that first pic i pulled a pound and. The second defoliated pic i pulled 26 ounces and i guarantee u i wouldn't have been able to pull that without defoliating and f.y.i stems are purple because of genetics. . and i did it all without flower nutes too


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> these are two seperate grows i did ,wich one do u think got defoliated lol






 pic is of the the non defoliated plants closer to harvest and video is of my defoliated plants big difference wouldn't u agree .


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> It's called an impasse. You believe what ever you want, based on pseudoscience, and I'll keep believing real science, based on fact.
> 
> It's time to stop called me back in here for this bs. Its a thread thats a half year old. Troll someone else..


trolling lol ur the one with no proof of anything just bumping ur gums. talk about trolling. I've proved my point . while u on the other hand have a "study planned for late 2017" smh .ur ridiculous ..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> trolling lol ur the one with no proof of anything just bumping ur gums. talk about trolling. I've proved my point . while u on the other hand have a "study planned for late 2017" smh .ur ridiculous ..


You didnt prove shit. Empirical observation alone proves nothing. Realistically, there's no way to tell if those plants would have been a large yield, as you said yourself, it's a different grow.

Anyone that goes simply by your empirical observation and copies your method, is a product of "social conformity". "Do it because it the other guy says it worked".

Science tells us "leaves turn light energy to chemical engery, period". ...Thats not based on your words and small ass grow, that's fact.

..but please do go on, and spit out more verbal diarrhea.


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I have a study planned for late 2017, but I believe @RM3 has some.





Dumme said:


> You didnt prove shit. Empirical observation alone proves nothing. Realistically, there's no way to tell if those plants would have been a large yield, as you said yourself, it's a different grow.
> 
> Anyone that goes simply by your empirical observation and copies your method, is a product of "social conformity". "Do it because it the other guy says it worked".
> 
> Science tells us "leaves turn light energy to chemical engery, period". ...Thats not based on your words and small ass grow, that's fact.


i know how leaves work lol when u defoliate u dont take off the entire leaves . it still has leaves to do what it has to do. just allows for under growth to catch up.. when u look at my pics u can most definitely tell which grow was the larger yield ,anyone with eyes can see that . yea its a "small ass grow"
but where's yours? if no one wants to take my advise that's fine .im doing great how i grow .. just ask any real grower if defoliating works and im sure they'll agree .it most definitely works. to u people indecisive about defoliating or not my advise to u is, don't let people without photos or vids of any kind persuade u into knocking it before u try it... fuck the talk lets see the proof.. until u can prove defoliating doesn't work its probably best to stay quite...


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

this dude acts like people who defoliate r against the leaves that obviously store food, absorb light and feed the buds lol .we defoliators realize we need leaves but what u don't realize is that u dont need every single leaf...


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> i know how leaves work lol when u defoliate u dont take off the entire leaves . it still has leaves to do what it has to do. just allows for under growth to catch up.. when u look at my pics u can most definitely tell which grow was the larger yield ,anyone with eyes can see that . yea its a "small ass grow"
> but where's yours? if no one wants to take my advise that's fine .im doing great how i grow .. just ask any real grower if defoliating works and im sure they'll agree .it most definitely works. to u people indecisive about defoliating or not my advise to u is, don't let people without photos or vids of any kind persuade u into knocking it before u try it... fuck the talk lets see the proof.. until u can prove defoliating doesn't work its probably best to stay quite...


I have tried it many times, cupcake. I've very much tried to "objectively" research why people claim schwazzing can work for larger yield, and the "science" is never there.

The schwazzing study I have planned is a very controlled study, for the reader, not myself. It's a large study, not some small time grow. It takes time, and scheduling, and planning.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> this dude acts like people who defoliate r against the leaves that obviously store food, absorb light and feed the buds lol .we defoliators realize we need leaves but what u don't realize is that u dont need every single leaf...


Leaves don't "store" food. The "stored food" is called "ATP" and isn't stored at all. It constantly moving in the Calvin Cycle within the leaf. ..and it isnt "food" until after PS1, where it becomes "G3P", or better yet "photosynthate".

Calling a leaf, "storage for food" is the same as calling your body "storage for blood".

It's ignorance, really, and used only to teach noobies whom don't understand how plant science works.. yup.. by all means, keep calling it a storage..


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I have tried it many times, cupcake. I'very very much tried to "objectively" research why people claim schwazzing can work for larger yield, and the "science" is never there.
> 
> 
> 
> .some fire aint it


yawn, ur a petty wannabe .
bottom line, defoliating works .just look at my pics again . ill be waiting for ur planned study too ,(sike)


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I have tried it many times, cupcake. I'very very much tried to "objectively" research why people claim schwazzing can work for larger yield, and the "science" is never there.
> 
> The schwazzing study I have planned is a very controlled study, for the reader, not myself. It's a large study, not some small time grow. It takes time, and scheduling, and planning.


u must not know what ur doing cupcake..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> these are two seperate grows i did ,wich one do u think got defoliated lol



You must not know what you're doing, cupcake...


----------



## KryptoBud (Jun 4, 2017)

needynate said:


> this dude acts like people who defoliate r against the leaves that obviously store food, absorb light and feed the buds lol .we defoliators realize we need leaves but what u don't realize is that u dont need every single leaf...


Non defoliators don't know what leaves the plant doesn't need? Can you explain what leaves they don't need and why? The only thing I've ever seen posted is take leaves off at day ?? and then again at day ?? Why are the times to do it so specific? "Leaves block light to bud sites" is the usual answer, never an answer with any substance. The biggest reason this misinformation is around is inexperienced growers regurgitate it constantly. In reality i think you lack the experience to tell the difference. One year growing experience is only a few grows so comparing the first to the third or fourth isn't fair. I'd bet the yield increase has more to do with environment, watering, and feeding experience than the defoliation. I'll add a couple links that show leaves do much more than photosynthesis.

https://www.boundless.com
http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/randpdf/grplants.pdf
https://garden.org/courseweb/course1/week2/page10.htm


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

KryptoBud said:


> Non defoliators don't know what leaves the plant doesn't need? Can you explain what leaves they don't need and why? The only thing I've ever seen posted is take leaves off at day ?? and then again at day ?? Why are the times to do it so specific? "Leaves block light to bud sites" is the usual answer, never an answer with any substance. The biggest reason this misinformation is around is inexperienced growers regurgitate it constantly. In reality i think you lack the experience to tell the difference. One year growing experience is only a few grows so comparing the first to the third or fourth isn't fair. I'd bet the yield increase has more to do with environment, watering, and feeding experience than the defoliation. I'll add a couple links that show leaves do much more than photosynthesis.
> 
> https://www.boundless.com
> http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/randpdf/grplants.pdf
> https://garden.org/courseweb/course1/week2/page10.htm


 u dont need the excess leaves that r blocking new growth from light and u dont need because u want to grow bud, not leaves.. the reason for defoliating in x amount of days is because if u do it to much to often u can over stress the plants and herm em out ,stunt growth etc..u can bet all u want but these were my grows and i know what i did to them .i know i fed them the same nutes and the environment was almost exactly the same as the other. u dont have to believe me . just know i will never pull anything under a pound and a half in my 4x4. next grow im shooting for three pounds and it will all be possible because of defoliating ,not to mention i have a bad ass set up and i know what im doing for the most part. . it baffles me how many ignorant people r actually on this site claiming to be so knowledgeable ,yet they never have pics or vids to prove anything they claim smh... show me a 4x4 grow room that hit 3 pounds that didn't defoliate and ill believe u when u say defoliating doesn't work or isn't needed.. until then just watch us real growers yeild large harvests and u can keep on thinking that defoliating doesn't work..


----------



## needynate (Jun 4, 2017)

Dumme said:


> It's called an impasse. You believe what ever you want, based on pseudoscience, and I'll keep believing real science, based on fact.
> 
> It's time to stop called me back in here for this bs. Its a thread thats a half year old. Troll someone else..









LikeComment
*3,519 likes*

*jungleboys*Some SFVXTK bred by Jungle Boys ..The right amount of "Defoliation" aka de leafing through out the plants cycle is very important knowing how much to take and when to take it. As the plants start to develop in flower you can start getting more aggresive. Some pheno types do better completely stripped down some need to be done over a period of time. It's up to us as growers to know our strains. Yield is greatly increased when the middle and lower growth can get good light penetration through out the entire veg and flower cycle. #jungleboys#playingwithfireson#propdcompliant#alwaysimitatedneverduplicated#ogkings#losangelesfarmers#tlcfarms#thejungleboys


i know u aint trying to argue with the jungleboys. i get my info from real growers not wannabes like u . like i said proof is in the pudding .. fuck what u think u know. look at the proof and take off those glasses of skepticism.


----------



## xmatox (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> You must not know what you're doing, cupcake...


I mean to be fair, the jungle boyz and many like them have their shit down on lock. They defoliate the fuck out of their plants and pull 2-3.5 pounds (allegedly). It could be that they took the time to seriously pheno hunt and have some ladies that love it. I have seen an improvement with defoliation within some of the strains I run, some not so much. I can't say that it does work 100% with every pheno, but it does work for some with me. Arguing the otherside when you DON'T have any evidence other than your "soon to be study" means nothing.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

xmatox said:


> I mean to be fair, the jungle boyz and many like them have their shit down on lock. They defoliate the fuck out of their plants and pull 2-3.5 pounds (allegedly). It could be that they took the time to seriously pheno hunt and have some ladies that love it. I have seen an improvement with defoliation within some of the strains I run, some not so much. I can't say that it does work 100% with every pheno, but it does work for some with me. Arguing the otherside when you DON'T have any evidence other than your "soon to be study" means nothing.


I have pictures I'll post tonight, but its not a formal study.

It make zero sense to cut off that in which turns light energy into chemical engery, and the foundation for cell division and growth. If "light" penitration is the goal, the problem lies not with the leaves, but with the light distribution, so add more light.

It seems to me, you have a grow room setup flaw, not a leaf problem...

Commercial growers strive for the largest sized flower, yes, but more so, an even sized flower, for retail. This means the maximum yield may not be reached, but all their product would be pleasing to the eye, and sellable.

...and of course, and video is curbbed with trophy picture, to sell the name brand.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I have pictures I'll post tonight, but its not a formal study.


I'll have another look later for the harvest pictures, but here's a photo of 2 clones in the same grow room, both lollipopped the same, same recirculated reservoir water, same nutrients, same lighting, cut from the same mother, and the picture taken at the same angle.

I didn't even have the room to take the picture of the full plant with leaves.

Both yielded well, but the one with leaves definitely had more yield, by far.


----------



## xmatox (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I'll have another look later for the harvest pictures, but here's a photo of 2 clones in the same grow room, both lollipopped the same, same recirculated reservoir water, same nutrients, same lighting, cut from the same mother, and the picture taken at the same angle.
> View attachment 3955341
> I didn't even have the room to take the picture of the full plant with leaves.
> 
> Both yielded well, but the one with leaves definitely had more yield, by far.


The problem is that every pheno reacts differently with defoliating, so referencing one strain seems useless in my book.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

xmatox said:


> The problem is that every pheno reacts differently with defoliating, so referencing one strain seems useless in my book.


This is just an old picture I found, but I'll look for more. I've done this test on a half dozen strains with similar results.

Like I said, I'll have a larger, very documented study late this year on both schwazz, lollipop, and my own technique of leaving on every leaf and only removing specific flower sites.

Bottom line is, again, leaves turn light energy into chemical energy, and energy = bigger flower.


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

xmatox said:


> I mean to be fair, the jungle boyz and many like them have their shit down on lock. They defoliate the fuck out of their plants and pull 2-3.5 pounds (allegedly). It could be that they took the time to seriously pheno hunt and have some ladies that love it. I have seen an improvement with defoliation within some of the strains I run, some not so much. I can't say that it does work 100% with every pheno, but it does work for some with me. Arguing the otherside when you DON'T have any evidence other than your "soon to be study" means nothing.


exactly..


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> This is just an old picture I found, but I'll look for more. I've done this test on a half dozen strains with similar results.
> 
> Like I said, I'll have a larger, very documented study late this year on both schwazz, lollipop, and my own technique of leaving on every leaf and only removing specific flower sites.
> 
> Bottom line is, again, leaves turn light energy into chemical energy, and energy = bigger flower.


your a bufoon.. got damn it how can someone be so ignorant.. u get all the proof u need to see that defoliation works yet u still want to disagree .. some people will never learn smh


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I'll have another look later for the harvest pictures, but here's a photo of 2 clones in the same grow room, both lollipopped the same, same recirculated reservoir water, same nutrients, same lighting, cut from the same mother, and the picture taken at the same angle.
> View attachment 3955341
> I didn't even have the room to take the picture of the full plant with leaves.
> 
> Both yielded well, but the one with leaves definitely had more yield, by far.


thats cute what did u pull an oz lol


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> your a bufoon.. got damn it how can someone be so ignorant.. u get all the proof u need to see that defoliation works yet u still want to disagree .. some people will never learn smh


What it taught me is the conformation that cutting off fan leaves limits yield.




needynate said:


> thats cute what did u pull an oz lol


I honestly don't remember. It was a while back before I setup scrog. The schwazz got somewhere in the 2-3oz range, and the full fan leaves on, got me 3-5oz range.

Still trolling I see....


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I have pictures I'll post tonight, but its not a formal study.
> 
> It make zero sense to cut off that in which turns light energy into chemical engery, and the foundation for cell division and growth. If "light" penitration is the goal, the problem lies not with the leaves, but with the light distribution, so add more light.
> 
> ...


so ur saying the jungleboys defoliate because they have a grow room flaw lmfao .. you fucking wish ! they defoliate because like they said and i quote, "Yield is greatly increased when the middle and lower growth can get good light penetration through out the entire veg and flower cycle".. did u catch that ,they said GREATLY increased ,not kind of increased ... just because defoliating doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it don't work ,obviously.. u can have all the light u need but if leaves are throwing shade like u, it will just be a waste of energy..... funny u called my grow a small ass grow but then u post two baby plants to try to prove ur point lmfao that's hilarious .. here's a video of one of my smallest plants take notes son


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> What it taught me is the conformation that cutting off fan leaves limits yield.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i think ur scale is broke buddie.. my plants average around three 0z and they're way bigger then urs..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> so ur saying the jungleboys defoliate because they have a grow room flaw lmfao .. you fucking wish ! they defoliate because like they said and i quote, "Yield is greatly increased when the middle and lower growth can get good light penetration through out the entire veg and flower cycle".. did u catch that ,they said GREATLY increased ,not kind of increased ... just because defoliating doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it don't work ,obviously.. u can have all the light u need but if leaves are throwing shade like u, it will just be a waste of energy..... funny u called my grow a small ass grow but then u post two baby plants to try to prove ur point lmfao that's hilarious .. here's a video of one of my smallest plants take notes son


What's funny is that you've shown me your grow, and I gave you a picture of a 2 throw away plants, and you think that's my grow, lol.

I don come on RIU to measure dick size, cupcake. I come one here to share and learn. You're responding is very belittling, and stops at strait trolling. Add something productive or get the fuck out. ...and while you're at it, stop speaking for people you've never met, like you're someone special.

You haven't added one thing productive yet..

FYI my last grow was a tad over 1.45gpw, who give a shit about how many oz's... I have one of the most unique gardens in the world.


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> What's funny is that you've shown me your grow, and I gave you a picture of a 2 throw away plants, and you think that's my grow, lol.
> 
> I don come on RIU to measure dick size, cupcake. I come one here to share and learn. You're responding is very belittling, and stops at strait trolling. Add something productive or get the fuck out. ...and while you're at it, stop speaking for people you've never met, like you're someone special.
> 
> ...


im trying to teach u but u refuse to learn . i continually prove my points yet u still are in doubt and refuse to see the facts ,dont get mad get smart..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> im trying to teach u but u refuse to learn . i continually prove my points yet u still are in doubt and refuse to see the facts ,dont get mad get smart..


Maybe you suck at teaching...
Maybe your teaching garbage...

Maybe your too retarded mentally to see you haven't proven anything at all.

..as I said, empirical observation alone is NOT proof, and social conformity is moronic, but please continue...


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> What's funny is that you've shown me your grow, and I gave you a picture of a 2 throw away plants, and you think that's my grow, lol.
> 
> I don come on RIU to measure dick size, cupcake. I come one here to share and learn. You're responding is very belittling, and stops at strait trolling. Add something productive or get the fuck out. ...and while you're at it, stop speaking for people you've never met, like you're someone special.
> 
> ...





Dumme said:


> Maybe you suck at teaching...
> Maybe your teaching garbage...
> 
> Maybe your too retarded mentally to see you haven't proven anything at all.


maybe ur an idiot and ur brain capacity is limited.. u have one of the most "unique" gardens in the world ,shut that shit down boy! I've provided proof and plenty of facts ur just oblivious to the truth ,u must be a liberal ..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

Coming from you, that means very little.


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

not once have u responded in a deffense to ur supposed belief that not defoliating creates larger yeilds . u just say that its better but have no proof.. then u start calling people cupcake ,and telling them that they have small ass grows,and that they're retarted . ur the true troll and r the one trying to make this a dick measuring contest . get ur head out of ur ass and take notes instead of being so one sided,...


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Maybe you suck at teaching...
> Maybe your teaching garbage...
> 
> Maybe your too retarded mentally to see you haven't proven anything at all.
> ...


i bet ur an old ass geezer who's stuck to ur old ways and will never learn anything new. funny ur most likely an old fuck, yet ur brain is that of a 15 year old..just keep on getting ur info from jorge cervantez and watch this younger generation accomplish greatness ,while we defoliate and find new more efficient ways to grow.. the future is now , get with the program or get lost...


----------



## JDMase (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> i bet ur an old ass geezer who's stuck to ur old ways and will never learn anything new. funny ur most likely an old fuck, yet ur brain is that of a 15 year old..just keep on getting ur info from jorge cervantez and watch this younger generation accomplish greatness ,while we defoliate and find new more efficient ways to grow.. the future is now , get with the program or get lost...


Your posts make my brain hurt


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> u dont need because u want to grow bud, not leaves


I don't expect you'll know...
Let me ask you something. How do "buds" physically grow? What substance do they use to do this?


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I don't expect you'll know...
> Let me ask you something. How do "buds" physically grow? What substance do they use to do this?


lol is this what it comes down to now lol... lets see ,there r many substances that add to the grow of a bud and the plant itself its not just one and any chemical compounds withinn the plant are considered cannabinoids and there r hundreds of them .


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


>


funny u got a video of a chirping cricket but nothing of a grow lol


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> lol is this what it comes down to now lol... lets see ,there r many substances that add to the grow of a bud and the plant itself its not just one and any chemical compounds withinn the plant are considered cannabinoids and there r hundreds of them .


There is only one substance that is responsible for growth, within a plant... what is it? ..no it's not cannabinoids, lol


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> There is only one substance that is responsible for growth, within a plant... what is it? ..no it's not cannabinoids, lol


is it glucose? i don't know, tell me Mr. know it all who doesn't know defoliating actually works..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> is it glucose? i don't know, tell me Mr. know it all who doesn't know defoliating actually works..


Close, its photosynthate. Where is this substance made?

Here's what young children already know, just because you clearly missed it..


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Close, its photosynthate. Where is this substance made?
> 
> Here's what young children already know, just because you clearly missed it..


glucose is the main substance created through photosynthesis so technically im correct


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

pho·to·syn·thate
ˌfōdōˈsinTHāt/
_noun_
Biochemistry
noun: *photosynthate*; plural noun: *photosynthates*

a sugar or other substance made by photosynthesis


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> glucose is the main substance created through photosynthesis so technically im correct


Hence why I said you were "close". Plants require more than sugar to build new plant tissue, all of which (hormones, amino acids, glucose, ect) make up "photosynthate".

...Im glad you finally found google

So, now you know sugar, or rather photosynthate makes the plant grow.
Now, what do you think would happen if you stop/slow the flow of photosynthate?


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Close, its photosynthate. Where is this substance made?
> 
> Here's what young children already know, just because you clearly missed it..


good attempt to try to make me seem ignorant tho lol


Dumme said:


> Hence why I said you were "close". Plants require more than sugar to build new plant tissue, all of which (hormones, amino acids, glucose, ect) make up "photosynthate".
> 
> ...Im glad you finally found google
> 
> ...


so now i know ? i gave u the correct answer numbskull glucose is sugar u buffoon and its the main substance created through photosynthesis. u said there is only one main substance and i gave u the one and main subtance as my answer . then u start throwing amino acids in the mix lol its just one like u said and i gave u the correct answer chump .


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Hence why I said you were "close". Plants require more than sugar to build new plant tissue, all of which (hormones, amino acids, glucose, ect) make up "photosynthate".
> 
> ...Im glad you finally found google
> 
> ...


glucose is sugar u idiot


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> glucose is sugar u idiot


Again, and let me spell it slower for you... T h a t s w h y I s a i d y o u r e "c l o s e". 
Don't be afraid to sound the words out.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

let go ahead and move on the the next question now...

Now, what do you think would happen if you stop/slow the flow of photosynthate?


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Hence why I said you were "close". Plants require more than sugar to build new plant tissue, all of which (hormones, amino acids, glucose, ect) make up "photosynthate".
> 
> ...Im glad you finally found google
> 
> ...


i read a post from somone on here and it goes perfect for u , if i slap u with a dictionary will the stupid fall out of u? must i zoom in on what the jungle boys said and show so ur blind ass can see better . defoliating works amazingly ..


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> let go ahead and move on the the next question now...
> 
> Now, what do you think would happen if you stop/slow the flow of photosynthate?


look gramps ur not schooling me or telling me anything i dont already know .. just give it up ..nobody is forcing u to defoliate so shut the foolery down ...


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

I take it you are too stupid to read the question or don't know the answer... hmm

Want me to spell it slow for you again?


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Again, and let me spell it slower for you... T h a t s w h y I s a i d y o u r e "c l o s e".
> Don't be afraid to sound the words out.


no i wasn't close i was correct ,the act of photosynthesis creates the substance glucose . the main substance that makes plants grow . FUCK ur so stupid


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

I understand you're stuck on this, but its time to move on and answer the next question before your nap time.


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I take it you are too stupid to read the question or don't know the answer... hmm
> 
> Want me to spell it slow for you again?


old man with a brain of a below average teen .with no grows to show ,ur quite pathetic really . u cant defend ur claims so then u start calling names and giving pop quizzes on topics that have nothing to do with the topic at hand .. does anyone else see this loser?


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> old man with a brain of a below average teen .with no grows to show ,ur quite pathetic really . u cant defend ur claims so then u start calling names and giving pop quizzes on topics that have nothing to do with the topic at hand .. does anyone else see this loser?


I have a 1000sqft cannabis garden, that many here have seen. I just choose to not care if you see. I am in no way threatened by you. I'm in my 30's, and on my way towards getting my degree in botany. 

Are you going to answer my second question or not? ...maybe you dont know..


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

26 ounces dry weight in my 4x4 with nine plants ,defoliating works .. ill more then likely get the 2 



 pounds next time with a bit more defoliating ..who knows maybe even three ,im a very optimistic grower ..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> 26 ounces dry weight in my 4x4 with nine plants ,defoliating works .. ill more then likely get the 2
> 
> 
> 
> pounds next time with a bit more defoliating ..who knows maybe even three ,im a very optimistic grower ..








I gave you a very simple question.... What happens if the flow of photosynthate stops or slows?

You're refusal to answer "is" an answer in itself.


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I have a 1000sqft cannabis garden, that many here have seen. I just choose to not care if you see. I am in no way threatened by you. I'm in my 30's, and on my way towards getting my degree in botany.
> 
> Are you going to answer my second question or not? ...maybe you dont know..


no im not gonna answer ur question ,I answered one already to prove to u ur not the only one who knows plants but now ur getting carried away .ur thirty damn could have fooled me .u come off as an old fart who refuses to acknowledge proof. if u really have that much space to grow no wonder ur against defoliating. ur to lazy to do the work i imagine . just because ur to lazy to defoliate doesn't mean nobody else shouldn't .


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I gave you a very simple question.... What happens if the flow of photosynthate stops or slows?
> 
> You're refusal to answer "is" an answer in itself.


thats very flattering that u went out of ur way to post that for me ,if only u had clips of a grow ,that would be amazing..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

lol, slow/stop photosynthate = slow/stop growth.

Sure, defoliate works great ......
.....to slow/stop growth.

...I understand why you wouldn't wanna answer, as your whole shit idea get flushed down the drain.

good try there, cupcake, good try..


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> lol, slow/stop photosynthate = slow/stop growth.
> 
> Sure, defoliate works great ......
> .....to slow/stop growth.
> ...


the way i see it u got no grows to show u got no room to talk.. all that space u got to grow and i bet u harvest 4 pounds the most lol its all about technique and u obviously dont have it . o ur going to school to be a botanist . must be regurgitating the shit ur teacher who probably doesn't grow weed says.. i can go to oaksterdam anytime id like to become certified that doesn't mean shit..


Dumme said:


> lol, slow/stop photosynthate = slow/stop growth.
> 
> Sure, defoliate works great ......
> .....to slow/stop growth.
> ...


no grows to show =no room to talk...


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> the way i see it u got no grows to show u got no room to talk.. all that space u got to grow and i bet u harvest 4 pounds the most lol its all about technique and u obviously dont have it . o ur going to school to be a botanist . must be regurgitating the shit ur teacher who probably doesn't grow weed says.. i can go to oaksterdam anytime id like to become certified that doesn't mean shit..
> 
> no grows to show =no room to talk...


You got my one picture.. Thats all you get, lol


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> lol, slow/stop photosynthate = slow/stop growth.
> 
> Sure, defoliate works great ......
> .....to slow/stop growth.
> ...


tell that to the jungle boys and any other big time grower and they'll laugh in ur dumb ass face and gladly show u otherwise with their large grows.. u are a simpleton..


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> You got my one picture.. Thats all you get, lol


that's all u got and it was very pathetic


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> that's all u got and it was very pathetic


Lol


----------



## needynate (Jun 5, 2017)

im out finally ur ignorance is bliss and there is just no changing ur pathetic stance . before i go tho i wanna let u know ur a bitch


Dumme said:


> Lol


yea laugh like the ignorant little pansy u r .. ur ignorance is bliss ... keep yielding small harvest too . i cant wait till more people chime in on this thread and see how ignorant u really r.. you've exposed yourself and i hope nobody ever takes advise from u..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

needynate said:


> im out finally ur ignorance is bliss and there is just no changing ur pathetic stance . before i go tho i wanna let u know ur a bitch
> 
> yea laugh like the ignorant little pansy u r .. ur ignorance is bliss ... keep yielding small harvest too . i cant wait till more people chime in on this thread and see how ignorant u really r.. you've exposed yourself and i hope nobody ever takes advise from u..


Yessa, lol, this is my caring face.


----------



## xmatox (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> View attachment 3955672
> 
> Yessa, lol, this is my caring face.


lol I just want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to anything you said, I myself have had a different experience. I would LOVE to see a large test done on many different varieties of one particular strain. Until then, I digress.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

xmatox said:


> lol I just want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to anything you said, I myself have had a different experience. I would LOVE to see a large test done on many different varieties of one particular strain. Until then, I digress.


Working on it bud. I'll be posting it on youtube, and RIU, amongst many other forums. I'm sure you'll find it.

Don't get the wrong idea, I'm all about trying new things, and experimenting. Even discussing opinions. Normally I don't have to deal with people, like my friend Mr cupcake there.

By all means, if you like the technique, do it.


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 5, 2017)

This started off an interesting post to read, then it got funny when you two started bitching, though it just became unfunny when Dumme turned pedantic and churlish. Since it seems it needs someone to adjudicate between you two then I would say in strict verification terms, Needynate has presented alot more evidence & pics (regardless of whether he's actually right or not) whereas Dumme has produced very little.

Secondly, to weigh in on the actual subject that seems to have shaken you both up so badly, I personally am coming round to the idea - the main thing that people who read botany textbooks forget is those books are all about generic, natural, healthy growth for seed production, whereas we're wanting specific, unnaturally healthy growth for bud harvesting - if you're successful at pulling big harvests its because you're essentially successful at boosting the plant at optimal output, even near to the fine line of stressing - nothing near like what you would find a wild one doing in nature. And sure, defoliating would be a stupid idea on a mother plant or one being grown for breeding out, but maxing flower production is not such a linear line. Also, the main thing I never see anyone seem to mention is simple maths; surface area to volume ratio - If a small number of larger leaves are covering a larger group of small leaves, then less surface area is actually being struck by light, so defoliating as appropriate does make sense to me from alot of standpoints tbh, and next grow I'm happy to and intend to test it properly.

Otherwise, just drop it and let it go and be content in what you're both doing already! it's not making you sound good either Dumme dude. Plus the OP has had barely any full answer to his query, which was mainly about minimal CO2 use anyway, his defoliation was a side issue if he's only a few days of use!


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> This started off an interesting post to read, then it got funny when you two started bitching, though it just became unfunny when Dumme turned pedantic and churlish. Since it seems it needs someone to adjudicate between you two then I would say in strict verification terms, Needynate has presented alot more evidence & pics (regardless of whether he's actually right or not) whereas Dumme has produced very little.
> 
> Secondly, to weigh in on the actual subject that seems to have shaken you both up so badly, I personally am coming round to the idea - the main thing that people who read botany textbooks forget is those books are all about generic, natural, healthy growth for seed production, whereas we're wanting specific, unnaturally healthy growth for bud harvesting - if you're successful at pulling big harvests its because you're essentially successful at boosting the plant at optimal output, even near to the fine line of stressing - nothing near like what you would find a wild one doing in nature. And sure, defoliating would be a stupid idea on a mother plant or one being grown for breeding out, but maxing flower production is not such a linear line. Also, the main thing I never see anyone seem to mention is simple maths; surface area to volume ratio - If a small number of larger leaves are covering a larger group of small leaves, then less surface area is actually being struck by light, so defoliating as appropriate does make sense to me from alot of standpoints tbh, and next grow I'm happy to and intend to test it properly.
> 
> Otherwise, just drop it and let it go and be content in what you're both doing already! it's not making you sound good either Dumme dude. Plus the OP has had barely any full answer to his query, which was mainly about minimal CO2 use anyway, his defoliation was a side issue if he's only a few days of use!


I only came back in this thread as I was tagged by needinate, so I have no guilt wasting some else's time, if they're wasting mine. Its a six month old thread. If you read this chronologically, you see that. I didn't start the bs..

If you want to see my garden, it's posted all over the place, but I don't feel it nessissary here to measure dick size, with that asshole.

The OP would have made up his mind 6 months ago. All the bs today is moot.


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 5, 2017)

That's good, as you were both in danger of looking petty otherwise, so I'm glad to hear it dude!


----------



## Dumme (Jun 5, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> That's good, as you were both in danger of looking petty otherwise, so I'm glad to hear it dude!


Look at the dates man, who cares about this dead thread..


----------



## KryptoBud (Jun 5, 2017)

Not all leaves are created equal. Also how beneficial can removing leaves at the top of the plant to get light to the bottom leaves considering how rapidly light intensity falls off over a very short distance. This subject has come up for at least the last ten years and i have yet to see an explanation of how it works with legit science. The standard answer is the leaves are blocking light from the bud sites which aren't efficient for photosynthesis anyways. Then it supposed to be done at certain weeks with no explanation why. Also Never seen anyone explain why it has to be done more than once during flower. I think if this worked well it wouldn't be debated everyday it'd be common knowledge like topping. When s the last time you seen a debate about it. You don't see it because there s actually science to back it up not just bro science.

Buds don't need light leaves do. Leaves feed the buds. The leaves are the source and buds are sinks. Youtube and grow weed easy aren't very credible sources for info. It doesn't require any knowledge or experience to post on thees sites so theres a shitload of bad info getting parroted to the point people think its fact.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC542216/pdf/plntphys00163-0102.pdf


----------



## JDMase (Jun 5, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Look at the dates man, who cares about this dead thread..


I think you've proven your point with the amount of knowledge you dropped, I think that other guy is just trolling for the fun of it. Look forward to seeing your test. 

I defoliated when I first grew and have since had deficiencies which have lost me leaves and outdoors had predators eat leaves and in all cases my growth stopped or slowed and flower production was hindered. So yknow, there's that. Defoliation doesn't work. I got pics too if that is the only way to verify.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> This started off an interesting post to read, then it got funny when you two started bitching, though it just became unfunny when Dumme turned pedantic and churlish. Since it seems it needs someone to adjudicate between you two then I would say in strict verification terms, Needynate has presented alot more evidence & pics (regardless of whether he's actually right or not) whereas Dumme has produced very little.
> 
> Secondly, to weigh in on the actual subject that seems to have shaken you both up so badly, I personally am coming round to the idea - the main thing that people who read botany textbooks forget is those books are all about generic, natural, healthy growth for seed production, whereas we're wanting specific, unnaturally healthy growth for bud harvesting - if you're successful at pulling big harvests its because you're essentially successful at boosting the plant at optimal output, even near to the fine line of stressing - nothing near like what you would find a wild one doing in nature. And sure, defoliating would be a stupid idea on a mother plant or one being grown for breeding out, but maxing flower production is not such a linear line. Also, the main thing I never see anyone seem to mention is simple maths; surface area to volume ratio - If a small number of larger leaves are covering a larger group of small leaves, then less surface area is actually being struck by light, so defoliating as appropriate does make sense to me from alot of standpoints tbh, and next grow I'm happy to and intend to test it properly.
> 
> Otherwise, just drop it and let it go and be content in what you're both doing already! it's not making you sound good either Dumme dude. Plus the OP has had barely any full answer to his query, which was mainly about minimal CO2 use anyway, his defoliation was a side issue if he's only a few days of use!


ur a smart man,or women whatever u are..kudos to u


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

JDMase said:


> I think you've proven your point with the amount of knowledge you dropped, I think that other guy is just trolling for the fun of it. Look forward to seeing your test.
> 
> I defoliated when I first grew and have since had deficiencies which have lost me leaves and outdoors had predators eat leaves and in all cases my growth stopped or slowed and flower production was hindered. So yknow, there's that. Defoliation doesn't work. I got pics too if that is the only way to verify.


ur not suppose defoliate outdoor ..


----------



## JDMase (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> This started off an interesting post to read, then it got funny when you two started bitching, though it just became unfunny when Dumme turned pedantic and churlish. Since it seems it needs someone to adjudicate between you two then I would say in strict verification terms, Needynate has presented alot more evidence & pics (regardless of whether he's actually right or not) whereas Dumme has produced very little.
> 
> Secondly, to weigh in on the actual subject that seems to have shaken you both up so badly, I personally am coming round to the idea - the main thing that people who read botany textbooks forget is those books are all about generic, natural, healthy growth for seed production, whereas we're wanting specific, unnaturally healthy growth for bud harvesting - if you're successful at pulling big harvests its because you're essentially successful at boosting the plant at optimal output, even near to the fine line of stressing - nothing near like what you would find a wild one doing in nature. And sure, defoliating would be a stupid idea on a mother plant or one being grown for breeding out, but maxing flower production is not such a linear line. Also, the main thing I never see anyone seem to mention is simple maths; surface area to volume ratio - If a small number of larger leaves are covering a larger group of small leaves, then less surface area is actually being struck by light, so defoliating as appropriate does make sense to me from alot of standpoints tbh, and next grow I'm happy to and intend to test it properly.
> 
> Otherwise, just drop it and let it go and be content in what you're both doing already! it's not making you sound good either Dumme dude. Plus the OP has had barely any full answer to his query, which was mainly about minimal CO2 use anyway, his defoliation was a side issue if he's only a few days of use!


You're confusing bro science with actual science. A leaf doesn't block light despite there being a shadow. Light can still travel through said leaf. We talk about light penetration with our grow lights and the sun is probably the best grow light out there, right? It has the best penetration I would have thought although im sure there's somebody in the know that can verify that. 
Just because somebody uploads pictures with claims doesn't make them valid. I could upload anything to prove my point and claim bigger yields - that doesn't make it true. 

People need to take forum knowledge with a pinch of salt, and realise that where you cite your knowledge from is almost as important as said knowledge. Valid sources are a must. Controlled double blind tests Vs. An Internet person making a claim? I know what Id pick.


----------



## JDMase (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> ur not suppose defoliate outdoor ..


Why not? If it works so good indoors why wouldn't you do it outdoor. That makes no sense to me


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

JDMase said:


> Why not? If it works so good indoors why wouldn't you do it outdoor. That makes no sense to me


its not quite the same. ill see if i can find u some literature on it..


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> its not quite the same. ill see if i can find u some literature on it..


Finally, please do, lol



JDMase said:


> You're confusing bro science with actual science. A leaf doesn't block light despite there being a shadow. Light can still travel through said leaf. We talk about light penetration with our grow lights and the sun is probably the best grow light out there, right? It has the best penetration I would have thought although im sure there's somebody in the know that can verify that.
> Just because somebody uploads pictures with claims doesn't make them valid. I could upload anything to prove my point and claim bigger yields - that doesn't make it true.
> 
> People need to take forum knowledge with a pinch of salt, and realise that where you cite your knowledge from is almost as important as said knowledge. Valid sources are a must. Controlled double blind tests Vs. An Internet person making a claim? I know what Id pick.


Not only that, but leaves 'never' block light, they absorb it, use it, and change the energy to chemical engery.

You cant look at it as a single leaf blocking another leaf, as all leaves work as a collective; as one unit for growth.

+90% of all water is absorbed because of the leaves, because of 'transpiration', where the stomata is located on the bottom of leaves. Without them, you limit nutrient and water uptake.

Waste management is controlled by the leaves..

Pro schwazzers don't care about plant science, and only look at 1up-ing everyone. Just look at needinate and how he wants to compare the first time he sees resistance based on science.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Finally, please do, lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i dont take off bottom leafs i leave them there fo that matter i try to leave as much large bottom leaves as possible .its all about knowing how to do it.defoliating isnt for people who dont know what their doing


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

*(Experienced Growers Only) Controversial Defoliation Increases Marijuana Yields*
*by Keef Treez "The Defoliator"*

Defoliation is an extreme marijuana growth control technique. It's not to be done lightly by beginners.


_(For those interested, here's a cannabis defoliation tutorial by a different grower)_


The topic of cannabi defoliation is one of the most controversial subjects in the marijuana growing field. People on both sides defend their position vehemently.

I'm on the side that believe there is absolutely nothing stressful about defoliation or bending branches. Honestly, there is no way to achieve nearly a pound of buds from a 2-3 foot tall plant indoors, except using defoliation.

Opponents often have arguments like, "PLANTS NEED THOSE LEAVES! If they didn't, they wouldn't be there."

Or my all-time favorite, "I have a friend who used to grow, and he insists that will hurt the plant."

Yet the saddest part of all is how so few people are willing to look at the evidence.

In some ways, I almost would prefer the rest of the growing world keep up their ill-advised lollipopping, removing growing tips, and other low-yield techniques. The defoliation technique has been loudly condemned by "experienced" growers for decades. Nevertheless, I am determined to educate other growers about defoliating and let them see the results for themselves.

So let me start by giving you some *picture proof* that defoliation works (make sure you scroll down to see all of them!).

You see, I've been defoliating intensively for 30 years. I am now training plants to be 32" tall and 32" round and yielding 250-400 grams under 400 watt lamp.

*Nebula Haze from GrowWeedEasy.com: Yes, that's right, he said 8-14 OUNCES of
buds of marijuana harvested off each short, easy-to-manage 32" tall plant, using
just a regular 400 watt HID grow light.*
_Here are two of my beauties (the one on the right needs a good plucking)_





*How-To Tutorial: The Controversial Technique of Defoliation*
Despite all the evidence (I've posted hundreds of pictures and shown dozens of growers in person), there is still somehow so much skepticism about defoliation techniques. Growers, especially new growers, often just say variations of, "It's common sense, how could removing any part of the plant cause you to get higher yields?"

I recently attended an advanced seminar with a prominent fellow grower and got roundly booed when attempting to describe the defoliation technique, even with pictures showing dramatic benefits.

Unlike many other growers, *I believe what's most important is studying how the plant actually grows*, instead of assuming she grows how we think she should grow. Real experimentation and unbiased observers are the only way growers are going to learn how to get the best yields for the amount of time, money, and effort.

And it's true that some types of defoliation are brutal to the plants (such as when misguided growers removing all the
leaves off extremely young marijuana plants), but other types of defoliation are actually hugely beneficial to increasing yields (I'll be showing you exactly what do do shortly).

And defoliation is beneficial for more than just marijuana, it also has been proven to increase yields for certain other types of crops. For example, it's well-known that cowpeas experience significant increases in yields when up to 50% of their leaves are defoliated during their flowering stage... (source)

_This marijuana girl is 32" tall (the dimensions of this girl are 32"x32"x32" to be exact). She was intensely defoliated throughout her life._


And it's true that the real beauty of defoliation is difficult to translate in pictures and verbally.

But I will do my best to give you everything you need to start producing your own huge yields with marijuana defoliation.

*But First, Let Me Show You About Increased Bud Production With Defoliation During the Flowering Stage*

*Before plucking*





*Immediately After Plucking*





Just *4 days later*, look at the incredible bud growth





Only *4 Days After That *(after another defoliation session)



_Are you beginning to see the power of defoliation?_

*How Early Do You Start Defoliating?*

I first started defoliating in desperation after many years of SOG, which I feel has proven to be too much work for inconsistent yields. After much experimentation, I've found my yields have been more consistent when training a single plant to use this space instead of 4 or 9 or 25 SOG clones.

Never mind the fact that in many states, patients are limited to just a handful of plants, removing SoG as a viable option.

Most growers who are curious about this do not want to perform defoliation on small plants. They consider the practice in veg to be too radical. And I 100% agree that totally stripping your seedlings of all leaves will be devastating to their growth.

And the honest truth is that defoliation isn't for everyone. Beginners are often already dealing with the drawbacks to their choice of method or media, and defoliation can be disastrous to any but the healthiest of plants.

Because of this, I sometimes hesitate to throw defoliation into the mix of challenges for beginning growers and I strongly advise any growers to experiment with defoliation (or with any extreme growth control method) in the vegetative stage only where there is *nothing at stake*.

That being said, I believe the only reason you should allow a marijuana plant to leaf out completely is in an outdoor situation where you want as large a plant as possible. In that case you can save deleafing for mid to late summer after full-stretch and branching.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

there is a lot more to read i couldnt paste all of it


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

The way I practice this method (growing indoors) leaves never get a chance to age. No leaves are allowed more than about two weeks existence. I start at the top in order to remove the shading. Removing lower leaf contributes nothing to the strategy of exposing usually shaded out mid and lower growth to premium light. I still remove older shabby leaves to keep it all tidy.

And this is where defoliation gets controversial. Many growers feel that controlling their plant in any way during the vegetative stage will significantly reduce yields. And I understand how it can seem that way, especially to new growers, before you've gone through the entire life cycle of the marijuana plant a few times.

Experiments show, again and again, that large plants with intensively prepared structure during extended Veg cycle yield far more than untrained, smaller, force-flowered inpiduals.

*Nebula Haze from GrowWeedEasy.com: I've also found this to be the case.
Small marijuana plants that are forced to flower when extremely young are
can be fun as an experiment, but produce pitiful yields. Investing more time
in the vegetative stage to gain girth, while controlling the shape and growth
of the plant, has dramatically increased yields for me.*
The truth is, that with marijuana, the real 'secret sauce' to getting enormous yields is when you've perfectly prepared your plants for the flowering stage. As any grower knows, once you're deep into flowering, there isn't a whole lot you can do about huge, out-of-control plants except hold on, pray for the best, and do better next time.

I DO NOT lollipop and advice strongly against it. I use defoliation to skillfully and artfully prepare plants during the vegetative stage, so that lollipopping becomes completely unnecessary. I am on a mission to refocus growing technique to never remove ANY productive growth. I believe only leaves should be removed.

Ultimately, the defoliation technique is a huge tool in the grower's toolbox that allows you to dominate the Vegetative stage. Then it can be used in the Flowering stage to maximize yields.

*Defoliation is the Big Secret to High-Yield, Compact Marijuana Plants *

My style involves *intensive defoliation* along with the *twist and train method* (a version of supercropping) using a basic net for support. 

I only top once, if at all, at the 5th or 6th node(approximately) depending on the height and structure of a given clone. I also deleaf them at this time. The only plants that get more topping than that are because they had clones taken from them. I don't usually keep dedicated mothers, instead, I just clone the clones and cycle everything through.

Here is a close-up of a veg clone getting it's second stripping.

Before



After



To get the best results, you should start defoliation in the vegetative stage. Leaf removal in bud is beneficial after stretch but most important to yields is management and the creation of a more compact plant with more budding sites in a given size. 

Stripping and bending takes practice but you must do it to get practice. By starting in veg you risk no bud. Veg plants are replaceable so experiment and be ready to devote a little more time to prepare them.

I'd describe my stripping as "aggressive." Once your plant is trained to deal with defoliation, it's hard to go wrong. Plus, after years of experience, I've become very familiar with how these plants grow and always know what my outcome will be.

But defoliation doesn't end in the vegetative stage. I also continue to pull the fan leaves off of my flowering plants to expose the buds.

As far as when and how often, I don't get too scientific about it. 

Usually if things look leafy, meaning that you see more leaf than budsites when viewing the crop, it may be time for another deleafing. It usually takes a week to 10 days for a plant to releaf to the point that there are 2-4 new leaves that have flattened and greened enough to deleaf again. 

This repeated releafing process allows that lower growth to benefit from the maturing of the immediate leaf mass. 

Leaf removal stimulates lower and mid bud growth by exposing those normally shaded out areas to premium light. Of course those new to the technique should start slow, but if you start too slow you won't remove enough leaf to see the best result. 

You basically want to prevent any 'shade' from happening.

Here's an example of how I deleaf a girl who is 2 weeks into 12-12 (flowering)

Before


After


Notice how, you can now see light all the way through the plant. This is a good thing for light, as opposed to seeing nothing but leaves in the before pic.

Wait, did you say you wanted to see what kind of buds I get at the BOTTOM of the plant?

_You get extensive bottom growth on defoliated plants_



This is on the morning of harvest. While some are obsessed with top growth I like well developed bottoms. Tops are a given. If bottoms are this well developed the tops are certainly getting their share of light. Some guys like tops, some like bottoms. I like my girls to be equally well developed.

*Ready to Get Started?*

You can start easy and try to save leaves but what happens when you see the results like all the mid growth exploding with the new exposure. It would serve logic that if you remove a little and there is good results than remove more and on and on until you get comfortable with stripping down these girls.

I recommend you start deleafing as soon as your plants start looking 'bushy' at all. Start with removing the fans from all the branches and watch the results. Then remove progressively more. Don't remove any branches or sites if you want to commit to this method. 

The idea is shade removal, NOT budsite removal. Allow them to releaf for a week or so and remove again when they look leafy. 

_This girl is 32"sq. and under 30" tall. She was thoroughly plucked continuously through her 11 week flowering cycle as well as during veg. No shortage of branches or buds, all of them chunky and exposed. I ended up harvesting 12 ounces off her. Marijuana plants do not get like this on their own. Stripping in veg and throughout bud is the only way to get results like this. _


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

When to defoliate (checklist)


Growing indoors with grow lights


Plant has several nodes (is no longer a seedling or young plant)


Plant is healthy and fast growing


Hardy strain


Plant is so leafy that leaves are laying on top of each other, especially if it’s leafy in the middle of the plant, preventing light and air circulation from getting to the inside of the plant (see picture below for an example of a great candidate for defoliation)



When NOT to defoliate


Growing outdoors


Plant is unhealthy or slow growing


Strain is known to be finicky and tough to grow


Plant is not very leafy


First-time or new grower

You can see through this plant and light easily reaches the bottom. That lets you know this cannabis plant doesn't need to be defoliated


----------



## JDMase (Jun 6, 2017)

You could've just linked to growweedeasy.com. 

I used that tutorial when I tried defoliation. If it works for you then good but the general consensus is that it shouldn't, doesn't and won't.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

JDMase said:


> You could've just linked to growweedeasy.com.
> 
> I used that tutorial when I tried defoliation. If it works for you then good but the general consensus is that it shouldn't, doesn't and won't.


i couldnt find the link


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> i couldnt find the link





JDMase said:


> You could've just linked to growweedeasy.com.
> 
> I used that tutorial when I tried defoliation. If it works for you then good but the general consensus is that it shouldn't, doesn't and won't.


"but the general consensus is that it shouldn't, doesn't and won't" lol speak for yourself .. its absolutely works


----------



## dagwood45431 (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> does anyone else see this loser?


Oh yes, and I'm looking right at you, big daddy.


----------



## dagwood45431 (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> doesn't mean nobody else shouldn't


Triple neg. Ouch.


----------



## JDMase (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> "but the general consensus is that it shouldn't, doesn't and won't" lol speak for yourself .. its absolutely works


It's like shaving your pubes, yeah your dick looks bigger but it's the same tiny penis as before.


----------



## dagwood45431 (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> defoliating is for people who dont know what their (sic) doing


fify


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

dagwood45431 said:


> Oh yes, and I'm looking right at you, big daddy.


o yea.


JDMase said:


> It's like shaving your pubes, yeah your dick looks bigger but it's the same tiny penis as before.


u must not grow bro


----------



## dagwood45431 (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> Are you beginning to see the power of defoliation?


I'm seeing a lot of correlation but very little in the way of evidence of causation.


----------



## dagwood45431 (Jun 6, 2017)

Dumme said:


> I have a 1000sqft cannabis garden, that many here have seen. I just choose to not care if you see. I am in no way threatened by you. I'm in my 30's, and on my way towards getting my degree in botany.
> 
> Are you going to answer my second question or not? ...maybe you dont know..


Do you get worker's comp if you get injured in one of those crash tests?


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> its not quite the same. ill see if i can find u some literature on it..


GWE? That's your literature, another forum? Lol.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> When to defoliate (checklist)
> 
> 
> Growing indoors with grow lights
> ...


8-14 oz off a 400watt, even @14oz, that's a little less than 397g or <1gpw. Lolol

My last grow I got 1.45 gpw, or ~15.5oz with a 300watt, without schwazz, and around 1.8EC the whole grow.

More evidence to leave the leaves on.


----------



## JDMase (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> o yea.
> 
> u must not grow bro


I do grow and I leave my leaves on so I can get good yields.


----------



## chemphlegm (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> *(Experienced Growers Only) Controversial Defoliation Increases Marijuana Yields*
> *by Keef Treez "The Defoliator"*
> 
> Defoliation is an extreme marijuana growth control technique. It's not to be done lightly by beginners.
> ...



I'm sold !!!

gonna cut off all my leaves and get more buds now


----------



## JDMase (Jun 6, 2017)

chemphlegm said:


> I'm sold !!!
> 
> gonna cut off all my leaves and get more buds now


Don't you know leaves get in the way of buds?! Get rid of them! More light to the buds means bigger buds! And also, don't let leaves live longer than 2 weeks because MORE BUDS


----------



## chemphlegm (Jun 6, 2017)

JDMase said:


> Don't you know leaves get in the way of buds?! Get rid of them! More light to the buds means bigger buds! And also, don't let leaves live longer than 2 weeks because MORE BUDS


FTW man, Cut the main cola off when it starts to block light to the popcorn buds for bigger popcorn buds

going to have to excuse me now .....I'm going fishing for a fuck to give


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

Funny story,... I know ktreez. I'm friends with him on facebook. We might not agree on growing, but he's a cool guy in real life.


----------



## BobCajun (Jun 6, 2017)

I don't know about the CO2 but something I'm trying now is to defol most of the leaves on the main stem, and pinch off the bud tips, at 5 weeks flowering. But the new twist is to increase the light to 13/11 until the bud leaves get big enough. I noticed that with 13/11 buds grow very leafy, so can't be used all the time, but maybe for 1 week after the defol, from week 5 to 6, and then back to 12/12 for that last 4 weeks. Or possibly for 2 weeks, if one doesn't seem to leaf them up enough. 

BTW, I pinch the tops off, like 1/8", to make all the buds along that stem into primary buds. It'll be like a bunch of top buds along a stick. The defol allows all those buds to get direct light, at least for a week or 2, so they get well established. Then if there's too much more shading by the new leaves, may have to do some leaf pruning, meaning cutting off the outer halves of the offending leaflets.


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 6, 2017)

JDMase said:


> You're confusing bro science with actual science. A leaf doesn't block light despite there being a shadow. Light can still travel through said leaf. We talk about light penetration with our grow lights and the sun is probably the best grow light out there, right? It has the best penetration I would have thought although im sure there's somebody in the know that can verify that.
> Just because somebody uploads pictures with claims doesn't make them valid. I could upload anything to prove my point and claim bigger yields - that doesn't make it true.
> 
> People need to take forum knowledge with a pinch of salt, and realise that where you cite your knowledge from is almost as important as said knowledge. Valid sources are a must. Controlled double blind tests Vs. An Internet person making a claim? I know what Id pick.



Firstly, saying an object which is casting a shadow isn't blocking light is just plain dumb. Secondly, the parts of the light that do travel through a top leaf are useless to any leaves below because the wavelengths they need have been absorbed by the chlorophyll in the top leaf. A leaf doesn't absorb 'light', it absorbs wavelength frequencies. Also, when people talk about light penetration, they are referring to the relative drop off in light intensity from source, not how many layers of leaves it can zap through - otherwise why would plants bother growing towards the sun if light penetrates everything?? Maybe the rainforest canopy is just a myth! Plus by your logic you'd only need 1 light bulb for the whole world lol! And yes of course the sun is the most powerful light in the solar system, though I wasn't really disputing that, plus the exact difference between outdoors and indoors growing is they're two totally separate growing environments so of course somethings will be done different.
And yes I agree you can't trust everyone on here, though please show me anywhere online where you can. Plus, I still find pics always trump no pics, and the issue of verification comes into play afterwards. Oh, and if you could send me links to all these controlled double blind lab tests on cannabis that you have access to, please do indeed - if you can show me academic papers and sources then I will truely apologise for thinking you to be so ill-formed.


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> When to defoliate (checklist)
> 
> 
> Growing indoors with grow lights
> ...



Wow! And that's all really good info too cheers Nate - I hadn't yet got round to properly researching though am glad I got into this argument now, as every cloud has a silver lining! Thanks man and just leave everyone else to it - I learnt long time ago there's no point trying to educate idiots so you may as well save your stress for someone worthwhile! Great grows too dude!


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Wow! And that's all really good info too cheers Nate - I hadn't yet got round to properly researching though am glad I got into this argument now, as every cloud has a silver lining! Thanks man and just leave everyone else to it - I learnt long time ago there's no point trying to educate idiots so you may as well save your stress for someone worthwhile! Great grows too dude!


thanks.. i just cant understand how people can have proof slapped right in their face and still refuse to see the truth .. ignorant people have always bothered me and I've never been one to let the foolery slide .but im happy to know that this site isn't just filled with dumb asses ,i guess people like us r just rare .


----------



## a mongo frog (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> I learnt long time ago there's no point trying to educate idiots so you may as well save your stress for someone worthwhile!


Bro you don't have to defoliate to have monster yields. Everyone knows that.


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 6, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Finally, please do, lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh and Dumme (which is so ironically apt btw!), this will be the last time I respond to you as I was too polite to console Needynate with it earlier, though I'm happy to say it now you're clearly itching to get nasty again, the reason being is the old proverb poser of who is more stupid; an idiot or a man who argues with an idiot?

So for the last time of being that man - you say leaves 'never' block light??! Hmmmmm, so I guess chloropyhll (and all surrounding leaf tissue) is deviously translucent despite looking like a solid colour block, yet somehow magically is still able to absorb light into it's translucent cells yet then somehow also releases it all again after absorption and it restores back to the light all the energy it deducted & used right?! (The answers no btw) And I'm not disputing photosynthesis occurs either. Secondly you pretty much can look at it as 1 leave blocking another because that's what's fecking happening!! Yes energy is relocated, as it is in any living organism, yet the plant still needs to maximise light yield - otherwise by your logic, 1 lone leaf could power the whole plant fine lol! And the limit in water uptake due to reduced stomatas is negligible enough to be obsolete as a factor, if you're defoliating and not stripping it bare.

Sorry to break it to you dude as I was trying to be nice earlier yet it's sadly ironic that the one person constantly accusing others of psuedo science is the one spouting the most and just mixing it with random biology facts.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

a mongo frog said:


> Bro you don't have to defoliate to have monster yields. Everyone knows that.


nobody sais u have to do anything. but if ur pulling a large harvest without defoliating, all im saying if u defoliate too your yield will be even bigger .. it
adds more weight simple as that..


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> thanks.. i just cant understand how people can have proof slapped right in their face and still refuse to see the truth .. ignorant people have always bothered me and I've never been one to let the foolery slide .but im happy to know that this site isn't just filled with dumb asses ,i guess people like us r just rare .


I know what you mean in a way, though I can appreciate if people are happy and feeling nailed down already then let them crack on - though there is no need for everyone to suddenly jump on you, as if they don't agree then they should just be letting you crack on too. More the telling difference is that if someone like Dumme suddenly said something we really learnt from we would admit it and be thankful, yet he would steadfastly refuse to learn anything whatsoever from someone he sneers on - sitting & listening rather than shouting is soundest base to learn any subject from.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

i apparently have to post this again ..anybody who sais defoliating doesn't work is full of shit .. when u make such claims your pretty much saying jungle boys and other top large scale growers don't know what they're doing .. and that's obviously a damn lie 







LikeComment
*3,519 likes*

*jungleboys*Some SFVXTK bred by Jungle Boys ..The right amount of "Defoliation" aka de leafing through out the plants cycle is very important knowing how much to take and when to take it. As the plants start to develop in flower you can start getting more aggresive. Some pheno types do better completely stripped down some need to be done over a period of time. It's up to us as growers to know our strains. Yield is greatly increased when the middle and lower growth can get good light penetration through out the entire veg and flower cycle. #jungleboys#playingwithfireson#propdcompliant#alwaysimitatedneverduplicated#ogkings#losangelesfarmers#tlcfarms#thejungleboys


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> I know what you mean in a way, though I can appreciate if people are happy and feeling nailed down already then let them crack on - though there is no need for everyone to suddenly jump on you, as if they don't agree then they should just be letting you crack on too. More the telling difference is that if someone like Dumme suddenly said something we really learnt from we would admit it and be thankful, yet he would steadfastly refuse to learn anything whatsoever from someone he sneers on - sitting & listening rather than shouting is soundest base to learn any subject from.


exactly ,they're closed minded and not open to learn, and they're all obviously riu buddies/lovers lol.. im sure they're on a lot of threads teaming up .trying to make their points seem valid.. funny dummy dume said a few times 

"Anyone that goes simply by your empirical observation and copies your method, is a product of "social conformity" . to bad him and his buddies don't realize they're the conformist ,basing their logic off empirical observation...


----------



## JDMase (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Firstly, saying an object which is casting a shadow isn't blocking light is just plain dumb. Secondly, the parts of the light that do travel through a top leaf are useless to any leaves below because the wavelengths they need have been absorbed by the chlorophyll in the top leaf. A leaf doesn't absorb 'light', it absorbs wavelength frequencies. Also, when people talk about light penetration, they are referring to the relative drop off in light intensity from source, not how many layers of leaves it can zap through - otherwise why would plants bother growing towards the sun if light penetrates everything?? Maybe the rainforest canopy is just a myth! Plus by your logic you'd only need 1 light bulb for the whole world lol! And yes of course the sun is the most powerful light in the solar system, though I wasn't really disputing that, plus the exact difference between outdoors and indoors growing is they're two totally separate growing environments so of course somethings will be done different.
> And yes I agree you can't trust everyone on here, though please show me anywhere online where you can. Plus, I still find pics always trump no pics, and the issue of verification comes into play afterwards. Oh, and if you could send me links to all these controlled double blind lab tests on cannabis that you have access to, please do indeed - if you can show me academic papers and sources then I will truely apologise for thinking you to be so ill-formed.


Don't know why you're blasting off on me mate. Never said I had access to those lab tests either. Maybe proof read a bit. Oh and fuck you


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 6, 2017)

JDMase said:


> Don't know why you're blasting off on me mate. Never said I had access to those lab tests either. Maybe proof read a bit. Oh and fuck you



It was because you quite clearly were trying to make out that I didn't know what I was talking about, so I corrected you. And it was kind of rhetorical when I was asking for links, so don't worry thanks. I will consider this concluded then.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> It was because you quite clearly were trying to make out that I didn't know what I was talking about, so I corrected you. And it was kind of rhetorical when I was asking for links, so don't worry thanks. I will consider this concluded then.


they're insulting our intelligence bro , that's a no,no ..


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> they're insulting our intelligence bro , that's a no,no ..



Hehe! Lol they can believe whatever they want and about me & my intelligence too - it's honestly not a worry in my life! I will always speak out like I did if people getting nasty and pedantic like he did with you, especially when they not in any much higher position themselves. You can keep feeding them if you want though it ain't gonna gain you much (fair play it is a laugh hammering numpties, though is far better to troll on websites you don't mind getting kicked off lol!) I'll wish you luck with growing, smoking & smiling in the meantime dude!


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Hehe! Lol they can believe whatever they want and about me & my intelligence too - it's honestly not a worry in my life! I will always speak out like I did if people getting nasty and pedantic like he did with you, especially when they not in any much higher position themselves. You can keep feeding them if you want though it ain't gonna gain you much (fair play it is a laugh hammering numpties, though is far better to troll on websites you don't mind getting kicked off lol!) I'll wish you luck with growing, smoking & smiling in the meantime dude!


most definitely


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> So for the last time of being that man - you say leaves 'never' block light??! Hmmmmm, so I guess chloropyhll (and all surrounding leaf tissue) is deviously translucent despite looking like a solid colour block, yet somehow magically is still able to absorb light into it's translucent cells yet then somehow also releases it all again after absorption and it restores back to the light all the energy it deducted & used right?! (The answers no btw) And I'm not disputing photosynthesis occurs either.


Yes, I said "never", ..dont be a dick. Leaves don't block light, they use it. Don't try and change what the meaning was, of that I said.

Block means it make the movement or flow in (a passage, pipe, road, etc.) difficult or impossible.



RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Secondly you pretty much can look at it as 1 leave blocking another because that's what's fecking happening!! Yes energy is relocated, as it is in any living organism, yet the plant still needs to maximise light yield - otherwise by your logic, 1 lone leaf could power the whole plant fine lol!


Secondly, leaves work as a collective,and all connected through sieve tubes. If you had two train engines (connected) on one track, pulling the same load, neither one is blocking the other. They're doing the same function. Again my words taken out of context, so,... "No" that is not my logic, as my point was only referring to the capacity in which I just mentioned. Again...don't be a dick. This is exactly how it all started with needynate. 



RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> And the limit in water uptake due to reduced stomatas is negligible enough to be obsolete as a factor, if you're defoliating and not stripping it bare.


I could give two shits as for if you do, but test it you're self, Take two mature plant in equal amounts of DWC. Now strip the leaves off one. See for yourself which one uptakes more.+90% of all transpiration is done through the leaves. ....negligible my ass.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

It's always the same idiotic logic with pro-schwazzors.


----------



## a mongo frog (Jun 6, 2017)

Couple non de fouluations!!!! 1000 watts and deps!!!!!


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 6, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Yes, I said "never", ..dont be a dick. Leaves don't block light, they use it. Don't try and change what the meaning was, of that I said.
> 
> Block means it make the movement or flow in (a passage, pipe, road, etc.) difficult or impossible.
> 
> ...




Lol you really are deluded! Do you not see your own wrong logic?? You do realise light is electromagnetic energy? If a bottom leaf is not receiving 100% of that energy due to a leaf positioned above it, then that top leaf is most definitely and clearly blocking it! By the very fact you say yourself, they use the light, yes they do, but then how is that portion of light energy gonna be available then for other leaves to absorb??! It fricking isn't because that's the laws of physics - energy does not multiply, leaves do block light, the earth is not flat.

And you truely reveal your idiocy with your 2nd point - yes leaves do work for the collective and are all interconnected, but that doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the point in hand about satisfying it's light requirement. which comes from coverage where optimally as many leaves are unshaded as possible - again, I'm not even arguing for defoliation itself, though the straight mathematics of it cannot be dismissed so casually either - surface area to volume ratio is reason enough to investigate further. And again, in both maths and engineering terms your train analogy is just plain nonsense - engines connected/throttle linked together become 1 unit - they aren't individual anymore, else if you mean 2 train cabs backed up against each other (1 towing the other towing the load) then it's physically impossible for them both to tow the same load at the same time, so 1 is always blocking or hindering the other. ( I'm actually laughing at how long you're gonna spend puzzling that now lol! "....._But if the 1st one just goes faster??!.....durrrhuuh") 
_
Please do come back with to me with something on that.


----------



## xmatox (Jun 6, 2017)

Here is a couple decent reads on defoliation.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2473778?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC543072/pdf/plntphys00130-0121.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00318527


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Lol you really are deluded! Do you not see your own wrong logic?? You do realise light is electromagnetic energy? If a bottom leaf is not receiving 100% of that energy due to a leaf positioned above it, then that top leaf is most definitely and clearly blocking it! By the very fact you say yourself, they use the light, yes they do, but then how is that portion of light energy gonna be available then for other leaves to absorb??! It fricking isn't because that's the laws of physics - energy does not multiply, leaves do block light, the earth is not flat.
> 
> And you truely reveal your idiocy with your 2nd point - yes leaves do work for the collective and are all interconnected, but that doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the point in hand about satisfying it's light requirement. which comes from coverage where optimally as many leaves are unshaded as possible - again, I'm not even arguing for defoliation itself, though the straight mathematics of it cannot be dismissed so casually either - surface area to volume ratio is real thing! And again, in both maths and engineering terms your train analogy is just plain nonsense - engines connected/throttle linked together become 1 unit - they aren't individual anymore, else if you mean 2 train cabs backed up against each other (1 towing the other towing the load) then it's physically impossible for them both to tow the same load at the same time, so 1 is always blocking or hindering the other. ( I'm actually laughing at how long you're gonna spend puzzling that now lol! "_But if the 1st one just goes faster.....durrrhuuh")
> 
> Please do come back with to me with something on that._


You're trying too hard, and looking into meaning that was never meant. Are you sure you understand the meaning of "taking something out of context".

The plant doest care where the photosynthesis is carried out, as long as it happens. I simply don't agree, as I don't see a single "leaf" as a reasonably argument in performance with the plant as a whole. I see "leaves" (plural) catching light as a group, to make the maximum photosynthate, and not a leaf blocking light from another, in competition. Your argument is moot, and petty. I never once mention the proportion of light vs leaves.

You cleary never been to a train yard where the load was so heavy it took two engines to pull it.


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 6, 2017)

Dumme said:


> You're trying too hard, and looking into meaning that was never meant. Are you sure you understand the meaning of "taking something of of context".
> 
> The plant doest care where the photosynthesis is carried out, as long as it happens. I simply don't agree, as I don't see a single "leaf" as a reasonably argument in performance with the plant as a whole. I see "leaves" (plural) catching light as a group, to make the maximum photosynthate, and not a leaf blocking light from another, in competition. Your argument is moot, and petty. I never once mention the proportion of light vs leaves.
> 
> You cleary never been to a train yard where the load was so heavy it took two engines to pull it.





As I said before and should've done already, I'm stopping being that man. Enjoy the revel.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> As I said before and should've done already, I'm stopping being that man. Enjoy the revel.


Will do, and you sir, enjoy your silence.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

i apparently have to post this again ..anybody who sais defoliating doesn't work is full of shit .. when u make such claims your pretty much saying jungle boys and other top large scale growers don't know what they're doing .. and that's obviously a damn lie 







LikeComment
*3,519 likes*

*jungleboys*Some SFVXTK bred by Jungle Boys ..The right amount of "Defoliation" aka de leafing through out the plants cycle is very important knowing how much to take and when to take it. As the plants start to develop in flower you can start getting more aggresive. Some pheno types do better completely stripped down some need to be done over a period of time. It's up to us as growers to know our strains. Yield is greatly increased when the middle and lower growth can get good light penetration through out the entire veg and flower cycle. #jungleboys#playingwithfireson#propdcompliant#alwaysimitatedneverduplicated#ogkings#losangelesfarmers#tlcfarms#thejungleboys


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> i apparently have to post this again ..anybody who sais defoliating doesn't work is full of shit .. when u make such claims your pretty much saying jungle boys and other top large scale growers don't know what they're doing .. and that's obviously a damn lie
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You sound like broken record, spamming the thread with the same crap that means nothing. Find some new material.. This "I'm right, you're wrong", isn't working.


----------



## needynate (Jun 6, 2017)

Dumme said:


> You sound like broken record, spamming the thread with the same crap that means nothing. Find some new material.. This "I'm right, you're wrong", isn't working.


ur wrong and im right tho ....but its cool ho keep it simple. Simple mind for simple grows .on that note im out so u can keep the feed back to yourself ...yadida


----------



## Dumme (Jun 6, 2017)

needynate said:


> ur wrong and im right tho ....but its cool ho keep it simple. Simple mind for simple grows .on that note im out so u can keep the feed back to yourself ...yadida


When you get some science to back what you're saying (which I don't see happening), maybe people will start perking up, but until then, pseudoscience it will remain.


----------



## JDMase (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> It was because you quite clearly were trying to make out that I didn't know what I was talking about, so I corrected you. And it was kind of rhetorical when I was asking for links, so don't worry thanks. I will consider this concluded then.


You stopped being credible when you said "what botony textbooks forget" 

Yeah, this is concluded.


----------



## xmatox (Jun 7, 2017)

Dumme said:


> When you get some science to back what you're saying (which I don't see happening), maybe people will start perking up, but until then, pseudoscience it will remain.


Above, I did just post some articles supporting defoliation.


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Jun 7, 2017)

xmatox said:


> Above, I did just post some articles supporting defoliation.


I read them and not 1 said pulling leaves makes bigger buds.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

xmatox said:


> Above, I did just post some articles supporting defoliation.


I agree with @Dr.Nick Riviera. I can't see how those studies on leaflets with trifoliata, and a study on a monocot (grass), are relevant to this discussion with increasing cannabis flower yield. 

Maybe I missed something. Please state your case, as opposed to just posting links. Where do you make the link?


----------



## GreenBean 420 (Jun 7, 2017)

This thread is epic... that is is


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

GreenBean 420 said:


> This thread is epic... that is is


All the "defoliation" and "flushing" threads are. It's like a bad joke that won't go away.


----------



## KryptoBud (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Firstly, saying an object which is casting a shadow isn't blocking light is just plain dumb. Secondly, the parts of the light that do travel through a top leaf are useless to any leaves below because the wavelengths they need have been absorbed by the chlorophyll in the top leaf. A leaf doesn't absorb 'light', it absorbs wavelength frequencies. Also, when people talk about light penetration, they are referring to the relative drop off in light intensity from source, not how many layers of leaves it can zap through - *otherwise why would plants bother growing towards the sun if light penetrates everything??* Maybe the rainforest canopy is just a myth! Plus by your logic you'd only need 1 light bulb for the whole world lol! And yes of course the sun is the most powerful light in the solar system, though I wasn't really disputing that, plus the exact difference between outdoors and indoors growing is they're two totally separate growing environments so of course somethings will be done different.
> And yes I agree you can't trust everyone on here, though please show me anywhere online where you can. Plus, I still find pics always trump no pics, and the issue of verification comes into play afterwards. Oh, and if you could send me links to all these controlled double blind lab tests on cannabis that you have access to, please do indeed - if you can show me academic papers and sources then I will truely apologise for thinking you to be so ill-formed.


Not sure about all plants, but in the case of cannabis wind pollination comes to mind. Growing against the gravitational pull, maybe? I think that's how seeds sprout when there is no sun or leaves until it breaks ground. The scientific name of it is tropism or phototropism. Plants produce auxins that bend and turn leaves allowing it to absorb as much light as possible. In this thread you say light can't penetrate or is useless to the leaves below and needynate says you're not supposed to defoliate outdoors. Why not? Wouldn't defoliation work better outdoors? See the contradiction? Also keep this in mind, this plant is still illegal for many of us to grow. What some think can be used to prove growing techniques can also be used to send you on a state sponsored vacation. We're debating whether or not stripping a plant of it's leaves is beneficial or not. Pictures don't mean a fuckin thing without having both sides grown side by side by someone who doesn't have an opinion on it. None of us in this thread qualify nor does growweedeasy, iluvdefol, iluvleaves, bigstembigbuds, or shits heads like 3lbs a light who try to sell a $500 magazine and nutrients to the blind and dumb.




needynate said:


> i dont take off bottom leafs i leave them there fo that matter i try to leave as much large bottom leaves as possible* .its all about knowing how to do it.defoliating isnt for people who dont know what their doing*


Translation I have no idea what I'm talking about I seen it on youtube.
Here's pic 






Stress the shit outta your plants by removing leaves closest to the light source so the bottom leaves get more light?


----------



## vostok (Jun 7, 2017)

*Strange this chart don't take into account the rectangular foot print of ALL Hps lights*


----------



## vostok (Jun 7, 2017)

xmatox said:


> Here is a couple decent reads on defoliation.
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2473778?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC543072/pdf/plntphys00130-0121.pdf
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00318527








Defoilating or de-leafing is one of the most misunderstood techniques of drug Cannabis cultivation. In the mind of the cultivator,several reasons exist for removing leaves. Many feel that large shade leaves draw energy from the flowering plant, and therefore the flowering clusters will be smaller. It is felt that by removing the leaves, surplus energy will be available, and large floral clusters will be formed. Also, some feel that inhibitors of flowering, synthesized in the leaves during the long noninductive days of summer, may be stored in the older leaves that were formed during the noninductive photoperiod.

If these inhibitor-laden leaves are removed, the plant will proceed to flower, and maturation will be accelerated. Large leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small atrophied floral clusters may begin to develop if they receive more light.
In actuality, few if any of the theories behind defoilatin or de-leafing give any indication of validity. Indeed, leafing possibly serves to defeat its original purpose. Large leaves have a definite function in the growth and development of Cannabis. Large leaves serve as photosynthetic factories for the production of sugars and other necessary growth sub-stances. They also create shade, but at the same time they are collecting valuable solar energy and producing foods that will be used during the floral development of the plant.

Premature removal of leaves may cause stunting, because the potential for photosynthesis is reduced. As these leaves age and lose their ability to carry on photo-synthesis they turn chloro tie (yellow) and fall to the ground. In humid areas care is taken to remove the yellow or brown leaves, because they might invite attack by fungus.

During chlorosis the plant breaks down substances, such as chlorophylls, and translocates the molecular components to a new growing part of the plant, such as the flowers. Most Cannabis plants begin to lose their larger leaves when they enter the flowering stage, and this trend continues until senescence. It is more efficient for the plant to reuse the energy and various molecular components of existing chlorophyll than to synthesize new chlorophyll at the time of flowering. During flowering this energy is needed to form floral clusters and ripen seeds.

Removing large amounts of leaves will interfere with the metabolic balance of the plant. If this metabolic change occurs too late in the season it could interfere with floral development and delay maturation. If any floral inhibitors are removed, the intended effect of accelerating flowering will be counteracted by metabolic upset in the plant.

Removal of shade leaves does facilitate more light reaching the center of the plant, but if there is not enough food energy produced in the leaves, the small internal floral clusters will not grow any larger. Leaf removal
may also cause sex reversal resulting from a metabolic change.

Marijuana Botany.Clarke


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

vostok said:


> Defoilating or de-leafing is one of the most misunderstood techniques of drug Cannabis cultivation. In the mind of the cultivator,several reasons exist for removing leaves. Many feel that large shade leaves draw energy from the flowering plant, and therefore the flowering clusters will be smaller. It is felt that by removing the leaves, surplus energy will be available, and large floral clusters will be formed. Also, some feel that inhibitors of flowering, synthesized in the leaves during the long noninductive days of summer, may be stored in the older leaves that were formed during the noninductive photoperiod.
> 
> If these inhibitor-laden leaves are removed, the plant will proceed to flower, and maturation will be accelerated. Large leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small atrophied floral clusters may begin to develop if they receive more light.
> In actuality, few if any of the theories behind defoilatin or de-leafing give any indication of validity. Indeed, leafing possibly serves to defeat its original purpose. Large leaves have a definite function in the growth and development of Cannabis. Large leaves serve as photosynthetic factories for the production of sugars and other necessary growth sub-stances. They also create shade, but at the same time they are collecting valuable solar energy and producing foods that will be used during the floral development of the plant.
> ...


Excellent information!


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

vostok said:


> Defoilating or de-leafing is one of the most misunderstood techniques of drug Cannabis cultivation. In the mind of the cultivator,several reasons exist for removing leaves. Many feel that large shade leaves draw energy from the flowering plant, and therefore the flowering clusters will be smaller. It is felt that by removing the leaves, surplus energy will be available, and large floral clusters will be formed. Also, some feel that inhibitors of flowering, synthesized in the leaves during the long noninductive days of summer, may be stored in the older leaves that were formed during the noninductive photoperiod.
> 
> If these inhibitor-laden leaves are removed, the plant will proceed to flower, and maturation will be accelerated. Large leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small atrophied floral clusters may begin to develop if they receive more light.
> In actuality, few if any of the theories behind defoilatin or de-leafing give any indication of validity. Indeed, leafing possibly serves to defeat its original purpose. Large leaves have a definite function in the growth and development of Cannabis. Large leaves serve as photosynthetic factories for the production of sugars and other necessary growth sub-stances. They also create shade, but at the same time they are collecting valuable solar energy and producing foods that will be used during the floral development of the plant.
> ...


Im really impressed. Finally a cannabis author that knows his shit. Wow, I can't believe I haven't heard of this book up until now. Lol

It's almost as if he wrote a book on normal plant botany, then put "marijuana" on the cover. (Pun intended)


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 7, 2017)

KryptoBud said:


> Not sure about all plants, but in the case of cannabis wind pollination comes to mind. Growing against the gravitational pull, maybe? I think that's how seeds sprout when there is no sun or leaves until it breaks ground. The scientific name of it is tropism or phototropism. Plants produce auxins that bend and turn leaves allowing it to absorb as much light as possible. In this thread you say light can't penetrate or is useless to the leaves below and needynate says you're not supposed to defoliate outdoors. Why not? Wouldn't defoliation work better outdoors? See the contradiction? Also keep this in mind, this plant is still illegal for many of us to grow. What some think can be used to prove growing techniques can also be used to send you on a state sponsored vacation. We're debating whether or not stripping a plant of it's leaves is beneficial or not. Pictures don't mean a fuckin thing without having both sides grown side by side by someone who doesn't have an opinion on it. None of us in this thread qualify nor does growweedeasy, iluvdefol, iluvleaves, bigstembigbuds, or shits heads like 3lbs a light who try to sell a $500 magazine and nutrients to the blind and dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol are you even serious??!! You're not sure why all plants grow upwards and in the case of cannabis you think it might be to aid wind pollination??! And you're having the audacity to criticise my knowledge??! That alone qualifies you to be disregarded from any discussion! And yet like Dumme, a person who knows the least (and you added an unsure 'maybe' into your own statement lol!) always seems to be the one most jumping on other people's opinions and calling them psuedo-science - you don't even know real fcuking science mush! Now I have plenty admitted I both don't fully know or even condone defoliating yet, but I came on here hoping to learn & intelligently discuss the topic, not deal with dickheads just calling everything they disagree (or more to the point, don't know about lol!) bullshit anytime anyone types.

And also, why the hell would a plant feel the need to specifically grow against earth's gravitional pull???!! What would that gain it then??! Lol! And the trophism prefix you're looking for is geotropism - that's just another nail in your coffin too - spouting big ideas and not even knowing the terminology! As for the rest of your confused and convoluted bullshit on defoliating and outdoors, I ain't even gonna bother answering as (a) it'll go over your head and, (b) you've clearly got some super magic science already nailed down so good luck cracking on with that!


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 7, 2017)

In fact I was reading thread on other section last week of some guy saying he thought RIU was dying - tbh I'm starting to see his point now: alot of knowledgeable growers & willing teachers seem to have left the site since I was last here, and loads more postings now seem to end up degenerating into slanging matches of people defending whatever position. I mean, apart from Needynate posting his bits, it's taken to page 9 till someone like Vostock kindly posts some more actual intelligent & in-depth information - hell, the OP has clearly given the hell up to expecting an answer to his actual original question, which was about fcuking CO2 lol!! I used to learn loads from this website and now it's just attracted too many kids talking shit like they're on the YouTube comments section.

In fact, for both Dumme & Krypto, I reckon it'd be interesting to review all your posts to date and see how many were where you offered advice & helped people, and how many are just straight trolling calling people idiots? I suspect I can guess the rough percentage. And how old are you two as well?


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> In fact I was reading thread on other section last week of some guy saying he thought RIU was dying - tbh I'm starting to see his point now: alot of knowledgeable growers & willing teachers seem to have left the site, and loads more postings seem to end up degenerating into slanging matches of people defending whatever position. I mean, apart from Needynate posting his bits, it's taken to page 9 till someone like Vostock kindly posts some more actual intelligent & in-depth information - I used to learn loads from this website and now it's just attracted too many kids talking shit like they're on the YouTube comments section.
> 
> In fact, for both Dumme & Krypto, I reckon it'd be interesting to review all your posts to date and see how many were where you offered advice & helped people, and how many are just straight trolling calling people idiots. I suspect I can guess the rough percentage. And how old are you two as well?


Well, how many time should I need to post the same thing over and over.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/three-a-light.906899/page-8#post-13516554

There's a ton of these defoliation threads on RIU, and it gets old, fast. About once a week, and then we have dumbass like yourself, egging the process on. This thread should have been over months ago.


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 7, 2017)

Dumme, you're not worthy of a reply mush


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Dumme, you're not worthy of a reply mush


Your silence is good enough for me


----------



## JDMase (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Dumme, you're not worthy of a reply mush


You spout that people are just here slagging off people and then you write shit like that. Hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

Funny thing is, this thread was dead back in 2016, and it wasn't till needynate started shit with me on sunday, that I even came back in here.

RedWhiteBlueGreen, you wanna lay blame to me posting, blame him for tagging me. ...and now it seems youre butthurt.


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 7, 2017)

JDMase said:


> You spout that people are just here slagging off people and then you write shit like that. Hypocrisy at its finest.



Says the noob who told me to fuck off!?! Lol! The difference is I didn't start it though if people wanna then I'll happily finish it. It's already been proven that your knowledge is very poorly constructed, and you're clearly an arrogant, condescending prick who loves trolling - I've no problem calling you out for the runt of a cunt you clearly are, and the same goes for that Dumme & Krypto wankers - if you guys hadn't felt the need to get rude & opinionated then it would've stayed a nice, constructive discussion.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Says the noob who told me to fuck off!?! Lol! The difference is I didn't start it though if people wanna then I'll happily finish it. It's already been proven that your knowledge is very poorly constructed, and you're clearly an arrogant, condescending prick who loves trolling - I've no problem calling you out for the runt of a cunt you clearly are, and the same goes for that Dumme & Krypto wankers - if you guys hadn't felt the need to get rude & opinionated then it would've stayed a nice, constructive discussion.



Lol


----------



## JDMase (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Says the noob who told me to fuck off!?! Lol! The difference is I didn't start it though if people wanna then I'll happily finish it. It's already been proven that your knowledge is very poorly constructed, and you're clearly an arrogant, condescending prick who loves trolling - I've no problem calling you out for the runt of a cunt you clearly are, and the same goes for that Dumme & Krypto wankers - if you guys hadn't felt the need to get rude & opinionated then it would've stayed a nice, constructive discussion.


Yeah I did tell you to fuck off but im not being a hypocrite am i? I stand by telling you that.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> The difference is I didn't start it though


...um, yes you really did. Page 7


RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Oh and Dumme (which is so ironically apt btw!), this will be the last time I respond to you as I was too polite to console Needynate with it earlier, though I'm happy to say it now you're clearly itching to get nasty again, the reason being is the old proverb poser of who is more stupid; an idiot or a man who argues with an idiot?
> 
> So for the last time of being that man - you say leaves 'never' block light??! Hmmmmm, so I guess chloropyhll (and all surrounding leaf tissue) is deviously translucent despite looking like a solid colour block, yet somehow magically is still able to absorb light into it's translucent cells yet then somehow also releases it all again after absorption and it restores back to the light all the energy it deducted & used right?! (The answers no btw) And I'm not disputing photosynthesis occurs either. Secondly you pretty much can look at it as 1 leave blocking another because that's what's fecking happening!! Yes energy is relocated, as it is in any living organism, yet the plant still needs to maximise light yield - otherwise by your logic, 1 lone leaf could power the whole plant fine lol! And the limit in water uptake due to reduced stomatas is negligible enough to be obsolete as a factor, if you're defoliating and not stripping it bare.
> 
> Sorry to break it to you dude as I was trying to be nice earlier yet it's sadly ironic that the one person constantly accusing others of psuedo science is the one spouting the most and just mixing it with random biology facts.


You came in trying to defend your lil friend, needynate. ..and since he's the one that started shit with me Sunday, I'd say you're both rightfully full on asses.


----------



## needynate (Jun 7, 2017)

Dumme said:


> Funny thing is, this thread was dead back in 2016, and it wasn't till needynate started shit with me on sunday, that I even came back in here.
> 
> RedWhiteBlueGreen, you wanna lay blame to me posting, blame him for tagging me. ...and now it seems youre butthurt.


yea laugh like the dumb little bitch u are.. ur a wannabe with no proof of anything .. u and ur boyfriends need a reality check.. i didn't start shit with u . i simply stated u needed to do more research.. u then turned into a total idiot and made things real hostile ,. u really should just go read instead of writing all this bs , real talk kid! u dont know how to handle the truth clearly.. straight ignorant


----------



## needynate (Jun 7, 2017)

Dumme said:


> ...um, yes you really did. Page 7
> 
> 
> You came in trying to defend your lil friend, needynate. ..and since he's the one that started shit with me Sunday, I'd say you're both rightfully full on asses.


the only ones who have friends on here ,trying to gang up on people is u jd and krypt . yall r riding each others dick super hard. all redwhite and blue did was agree with me when he saw how ignorant yall became with me..


----------



## needynate (Jun 7, 2017)

Dumme said:


> ...um, yes you really did. Page 7
> 
> 
> You came in trying to defend your lil friend, needynate. ..and since he's the one that started shit with me Sunday, I'd say you're both rightfully full on asses.


the real issue at hand is you and ur lovers dont know how except the fact that others know things u don't .. u want to feel correct and make others feel dumb while doing so and when u cant accomplish these things u then u start calling people names and jump on that troll tip... u and ur lovers are very arrogant and it shows ...


----------



## BobCajun (Jun 7, 2017)

I have a great idea, PM each other the personal attacks, because to anyone else reading it's not very interesting. Like you say, it seems to be the current trend on RIU. Nobody else cares who wins the insult contest so why put it on a public thread? Yes, I've been drawn into similar stuff myself in the past but I'm not even going to let that happen anymore.


----------



## Dumme (Jun 7, 2017)

BobCajun said:


> I have a great idea, PM each other the personal attacks, because to anyone else reading it's not very interesting. Like you say, it seems to be the current trend on RIU. Nobody else cares who wins the insult contest so why put it on a public thread? Yes, I've been drawn into similar stuff myself in the past but I'm not even going to let that happen anymore.


Agreed, I've had enough..



needynate said:


> the real issue at hand is you and ur lovers dont know how except the fact that others know things u don't .. u want to feel correct and make others feel dumb while doing so and when u cant accomplish these things u then u start calling people names and jump on that troll tip... u and ur lovers are very arrogant and it shows ...


Ive been preach exactly what's in Robert Cornell Clarke's book since day one.
Nothing posted here "pro-defoliation" is new information. It's always the same...

Let bye gones, be... and all that. Good day sir.


----------



## BobCajun (Jun 7, 2017)

Now, I think the 3 to a light thread is more appropriate to what I want to discuss so I'll head over there.


----------



## KryptoBud (Jun 7, 2017)

RedWhiteBlueGreen said:


> Lol are you even serious??!! You're not sure why all plants grow upwards and in the case of cannabis you think it might be to aid wind pollination??! And you're having the audacity to criticise my knowledge??! That alone qualifies you to be disregarded from any discussion! And yet like Dumme, a person who knows the least (and you added an unsure 'maybe' into your own statement lol!) always seems to be the one most jumping on other people's opinions and calling them psuedo-science - you don't even know real fcuking science mush! Now I have plenty admitted I both don't fully know or even condone defoliating yet, but I came on here hoping to learn & intelligently discuss the topic, not deal with dickheads just calling everything they disagree (or more to the point, don't know about lol!) bullshit anytime anyone types.
> 
> *And also, why the hell would a plant feel the need to specifically grow against earth's gravitional pull???!! What would that gain it then??! Lol! And the trophism prefix you're looking for is geotropism - that's just another nail in your coffin too - spouting big ideas and not even knowing the terminology! *As for the rest of your confused and convoluted bullshit on defoliating and outdoors, I ain't even gonna bother answering as (a) it'll go over your head and, (b) you've clearly got some super magic science already nailed down so good luck cracking on with that!


I don't remember calling you any names. You started that shit in your first post in this thread so I'll leave the internet tough guy shit to you and nn. You say came to learn about defoliation, you're full of shit. You joined joined in because you have a grandiose self image and for some reason thought you needed to mediate a debate on a subject you know squat about. Now you're the one acting like a petty cocksucker turned pedantic and churlish. You see where I put maybe or might that's what we call sarcasm. I apologize if it wasn't obvious enough for you, sometimes that happens in text.

The question about outdoor defoliation seemed valid to me. You say light can't penetrate and therefore shades what's under it. NastyNate say's not to defoliate outdoors, why? If light or wavelength frequencies can't penetrate leaves and create shadows on the lower or inside growth wouldn't leaf removal be beneficial to those areas?


ge·ot·ro·pism
jēəˈtrōpizəm/
_noun_
BOTANY

the growth of the parts of plants with respect to the force of gravity. The upward growth of plant shoots is an instance of _negative geotropism_ ; the downward growth of roots is _positive geotropism_.
Why would plant's grow against gravity? How does a seed know which way is up when it's underground? I'll stick with phototropism as it pertains to this thread and the need for defoliation. I won't bore you with the definition I'm sure you know it.

If you feel the need go ahead and look at my post history. I've been on this site about double the time you have and I'd bet you've surpassed any name calling or trolling bullshit in one thread. You're correct and fully agree the about the shitheads and trolling taking over RIU the internet in general. All you have to do is read the thread to see who the trolls and hipp o crits are.

One last tip I've learned from the trolls is if gonna call sum1 dumm or tell them they shouldn't have the audacity to critisize your knowledge learn to spell fuck, it's only four letters.


----------



## KryptoBud (Jun 7, 2017)

needynate said:


> the only ones who have friends on here ,trying to gang up on people is u jd and krypt . yall r riding each others dick super hard. all redwhite and blue did was agree with me when he saw how ignorant yall became with me..


I know you as well as anyone else in this thread. If you see people agree or disagree as being ignorant, dick riding or ganging up your view might be skewed. I think you got honest feedback that you didn't like so you went on a name calling spree. It's seems to have slipped your memory so I'll remind you of YOUR first post.



needynate said:


> if ur growing out doors yes leave ur leaves on but indoor is a different story .. sure u can leave em on but its not as good as taking em off .. defoliating is the way to grow indoor for sure... .. lol dont believe me ,i suggest doing more research on this topic.


YOU bumped an old thread to argue with much more seasoned growers. A year ago you were asking the most basic grow questions there are, then you watch a youtube video and tell people they need to do research? You came looking for an argument on a subject you know shit about and got what you were looking for so what the fuck are you crying about?


----------



## needynate (Jun 7, 2017)

KryptoBud said:


> I know you as well as anyone else in this thread. If you see people agree or disagree as being ignorant, dick riding or ganging up your view might be skewed. I think you got honest feedback that you didn't like so you went on a name calling spree. It's seems to have slipped your memory so I'll remind you of YOUR first post.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU bumped an old thread to argue with much more seasoned growers. A year ago you were asking the most basic grow questions there are, then you watch a youtube video and tell people they need to do research? You came looking for an argument on a subject you know shit about and got what you were looking for so what the fuck are you crying about?


yo u still talking .. shut that ass up tho ,u obviously kno nothing..


----------



## dagwood45431 (Jun 8, 2017)

KryptoBud said:


> I know you as well as anyone else in this thread. If you see people agree or disagree as being ignorant, dick riding or ganging up your view might be skewed. I think you got honest feedback that you didn't like so you went on a name calling spree. It's seems to have slipped your memory so I'll remind you of YOUR first post.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU bumped an old thread to argue with much more seasoned growers. A year ago you were asking the most basic grow questions there are, then you watch a youtube video and tell people they need to do research? You came looking for an argument on a subject you know shit about and got what you were looking for so what the fuck are you crying about?


----------



## a mongo frog (Jun 8, 2017)

needynate said:


> yo u still talking .. shut that ass up tho ,u obviously kno nothing..


You got called out for fan boying dude, no big deal. No need to get upset.


----------



## Dr.Nick Riviera (Jun 8, 2017)

a mongo frog said:


> You got called out for fan boying dude, no big deal. No need to get upset.


does he need to post that pic, AGAIN? LOL


----------



## RedWhiteBlueGreen (Jun 8, 2017)

KryptoBud said:


> I don't remember calling you any names. You started that shit in your first post in this thread so I'll leave the internet tough guy shit to you and nn. You say came to learn about defoliation, you're full of shit. You joined joined in because you have a grandiose self image and for some reason thought you needed to mediate a debate on a subject you know squat about. Now you're the one acting like a petty cocksucker turned pedantic and churlish. You see where I put maybe or might that's what we call sarcasm. I apologize if it wasn't obvious enough for you, sometimes that happens in text.
> 
> The question about outdoor defoliation seemed valid to me. You say light can't penetrate and therefore shades what's under it. NastyNate say's not to defoliate outdoors, why? If light or wavelength frequencies can't penetrate leaves and create shadows on the lower or inside growth wouldn't leaf removal be beneficial to those areas?
> 
> ...




Hahaha a post that long means I touched a nerve! Glad to see and although you'd never admit it to me, I'm pleased it clearly hit home how stupid you were! Oh, and I love your attempt to pretend otherwise by rambling another load of bullshit! 

I will always remember you as the kid who doesn't know why plants grow upwards! Hilarious!


----------



## CavScout_420 (Aug 10, 2018)

So what


Dumme said:


> You didnt prove shit. Empirical observation alone proves nothing. Realistically, there's no way to tell if those plants would have been a large yield, as you said yourself, it's a different grow.
> 
> Anyone that goes simply by your empirical observation and copies your method, is a product of "social conformity". "Do it because it the other guy says it worked".
> 
> ...


So what I'm taking from this is you believe anything as long as a scientist says it's true....


needynate said:


> u dont need the excess leaves that r blocking new growth from light and u dont need because u want to grow bud, not leaves.. the reason for defoliating in x amount of days is because if u do it to much to often u can over stress the plants and herm em out ,stunt growth etc..u can bet all u want but these were my grows and i know what i did to them .i know i fed them the same nutes and the environment was almost exactly the same as the other. u dont have to believe me . just know i will never pull anything under a pound and a half in my 4x4. next grow im shooting for three pounds and it will all be possible because of defoliating ,not to mention i have a bad ass set up and i know what im doing for the most part. . it baffles me how many ignorant people r actually on this site claiming to be so knowledgeable ,yet they never have pics or vids to prove anything they claim smh... show me a 4x4 grow room that hit 3 pounds that didn't defoliate and ill believe u when u say defoliating doesn't work or isn't needed.. until then just watch us real growers yeild large harvests and u can keep on thinking that defoliating doesn't work..


 3 pounds in a 4x4 tent holy Shit I need some pointers.....what is your setup I'm on my first grow using a California light works solar storm 440 in a 3x3 gorilla tent


----------



## DemonTrich (Aug 10, 2018)

3lbs in a 4x4.....

Shit I've been at this for 6+ yrs. I get 4 from an 8x12 with 4x315 ams co2

Calling gsuper BS 9n 3lbs from a 4x4!


----------



## CavScout_420 (Aug 10, 2018)

So what


Dumme said:


> You didnt prove shit. Empirical observation alone proves nothing. Realistically, there's no way to tell if those plants would have been a large yield, as you said yourself, it's a different grow.
> 
> Anyone that goes simply by your empirical observation and copies your method, is a product of "social conformity". "Do it because it the other guy says it worked".
> 
> ...


So what I'm taking from this is you believe anything as long as a scientist says it's true....


needynate said:


> u dont need the excess leaves that r blocking new growth from light and u dont need because u want to grow bud, not leaves.. the reason for defoliating in x amount of days is because if u do it to much to often u can over stress the plants and herm em out ,stunt growth etc..u can bet all u want but these were my grows and i know what i did to them .i know i fed them the same nutes and the environment was almost exactly the same as the other. u dont have to believe me . just know i will never pull anything under a pound and a half in my 4x4. next grow im shooting for three pounds and it will all be possible because of defoliating ,not to mention i have a bad ass set up and i know what im doing for the most part. . it baffles me how many ignorant people r actually on this site claiming to be so knowledgeable ,yet they never have pics or vids to prove anything they claim smh... show me a 4x4 grow room that hit 3 pounds that didn't defoliate and ill believe u when u say defoliating doesn't work or isn't needed.. until then just watch us real growers yeild large harvests and u can keep on thinking that defoliating doesn't work..


 3 pounds in a 4x4 tent holy Shit I need some pointers.....what is your setup I'm on my first grow using a California light works solar storm 440 in a 3x3 gorilla tent


----------



## BigHornBuds (Aug 10, 2018)

In a tent 3 p would be very very impressive 

3+ pounds in a 4x4 area , ante no thing 
I use to be like lots out there and believe we need all the leaves.
Will removing leaves hurt that bud? Yes 100% . Does topping hurt the potential of a bud vs not , yes 100% . 
Does scrog make smaller buds , but a lot more ? Yes . It’s all about math and % of light and penetration and amounts of flowering sites . 
And there’s no replacement for displacement in this equation, LEDs n lower watts will never equal a DE1000 Being able to probably perform 2nd grade science experiments with proper controls n variables would make a lot of people better at what they do. 
Data collection, observations, hypothesis, experiment, follow though, 
When I broke 3 a light I didn’t think I hit the top, it was “ok kool, now what can I do better”.

Genetics play a huge roll too, I have ran strains that I will never hit big numbers too. 


Flame away , but back it up , think my pic backs up my statements up pretty well. 

Show you the way I will. Voda voice


----------



## DemonTrich (Aug 10, 2018)

That's NOT a 4x4 area. 

FEET not meters!


----------



## BigHornBuds (Aug 10, 2018)

That one square is bud ,
48inches x 48inches = 4 FEET x 4 FEET

1 DE 1000 is doing that .


----------



## KryptoBud (Aug 10, 2018)

CavScout_420 said:


> So what I'm taking from this is you believe anything as long as a scientist says it's true....


Fuck science bro! Ever see the stupid shit they claim bout gravity? Try jumping off a roof, don't be scured it's easy you can do it here's proof.






God damn scientists are full of shit. Look at the joy on their faces what more proof do ya need?


----------



## CavScout_420 (Aug 11, 2018)

needynate said:


> tell that to the jungle boys and any other big time grower and they'll laugh in ur dumb ass face and gladly show u otherwise with their large grows.. u are a simpleton..





KryptoBud said:


> Fuck science bro! Ever see the stupid shit they claim bout gravity? Try jumping off a roof, don't be scured it's easy you can do it here's proof.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haha my exact stand on scientists. I take the word of someone who has been growing for sometime with a grow to back it up over a scientist word anyday


----------



## Sithlord88 (Aug 17, 2018)

Haha, funny to see threads get hijacked and filled with childishness and bickering... anyways, im guessing the op doesnt have near enough light to need co2. Co2 is only neeed or used correctly when absolutely EVERYTHING else is 100% dialed in. Then you need to have an almost overkill status amount of wattage (light wise). Ive seen way to many people waste $$$ on tanks/regs/equiptment that made little to no difference


----------



## ANC (Aug 17, 2018)

It is so easy for people to just do a small side by side... I have a defoliation side by side in the scrogging thread for instance...


----------



## KryptoBud (Aug 17, 2018)

Sithlord88 said:


> Haha, funny to see threads get hijacked and filled with childishness and bickering... anyways, im guessing the op doesnt have near enough light to need co2. Co2 is only neeed or used correctly when absolutely EVERYTHING else is 100% dialed in. Then you need to have an almost overkill status amount of wattage (light wise). Ive seen way to many people waste $$$ on tanks/regs/equiptment that made little to no difference


OP never said what he's using for light and it's a 2 year old thread anyway.


----------



## Jamk911 (Jul 10, 2020)

I as a totally new grower have nothing to back myself and cannot side with anyone on this.. but I can see both sides arguements.. I would have to assume there are just soo many factors involved that it really is a plant by plant basis.. soo ill do no defoliating .. since the reward does not outweigh risk to me.

I can see what people say that having numerous leaves in the same path the light travels seems pointless since only one can soak up the wavelengths that light path gives out.. and also that extra leaves mean the plant needs to dedicate a bit of its energy to upkeep them.. and if they do not contribute by intaking anything.. are a waste.. 
But also feel like removing leaves may stress plant or make it want to put energy into making new leaves and take away from its equilibrium... I also feel like the plant made those leaves for a reason..
I just feel like its like the plants whole systems a restuarant.. the leaves power it and keep it going.. the buds are the product.. if you need more product you need more power.. if not cut some staff off.. lol..but if staffing is lower than needed to keep it going.. a problem may happen and you may have a huge waiting time.. or worse.. lose out on product in the end..


----------

