# Lollipopping ( Any Scientific Evidence? )



## Pass it Around (Sep 26, 2014)

I just went to my boys house and he has the bottom 2 feet of all his plants empty... not a leaf not a bud... only sticks. I just don't get why someone would do it... he said air flow but really put another fuckin fan in there you know what I mean?

Anyways I just wanna know if there is any scientific evidence that this does anything good for the plant? He also said something about only getting big buds but he also strips the 2 feet in ONE day...

to me thats like taking a fuckin chainsaw to your ladies and asking them to perform great after.


----------



## bigbuddin84 (Sep 26, 2014)

The reason most peole do it is to get rid of all the BS at the bottom. They don't get light and come out airy. It is a great method, I've seen awesome results doing it. Although, citing improved air flow as the reasoning is a new one to me. Like you said, get a bigger fan, lol.


----------



## Pass it Around (Sep 26, 2014)

bigbuddin84 said:


> The reason most peole do it is to get rid of all the BS at the bottom. They don't get light and come out airy. It is a great method, I've seen awesome results doing it. Although, citing improved air flow as the reasoning is a new one to me. Like you said, get a bigger fan, lol.


I can understand not wanting the smaller stuff but it makes good hash


----------



## MachiavellI420 (Sep 26, 2014)

if you take all the stupid little airy buds off the bottoms of each branch it gives the plant no choice but to concentrate all its energy on the only buds remaining on the branch. it works really good for lst, or scrog grows.


----------



## Diabolical666 (Sep 26, 2014)

Apple growers swear by it.


----------



## Bricksquad2625 (Sep 27, 2014)

just get some badass side lighting


----------



## GroErr (Sep 27, 2014)

Good question, I've always questioned the premise that removing the bottom branches/popcorn gets more growth up top. If I have a problem with getting airflow then I don't have enough fans running. I'll selectively prune the bottom branches, usually during the stretch but only if I see nothing is going to grow there, otherwise I leave it, all of that little bud/popcorn goes into an oil/hash bin so no loss in weight imo, as long as you use it it's all good. Not that I'm trashing anyone for doing it and I don't scrog, I probably would trim a bit more in that style of grow as the canopy pretty well covers any light getting to the bottom. But for regular grows in soil imo it's better to open them up with LST/trellises to get light down there. I've never seen anything on this other than opinions, if someone can point out a study that has proven benefits I'm in, always open to improvements, just haven't seen anything solid. Cheers.


----------



## MachiavellI420 (Sep 27, 2014)

i love the OP's avatar lmao!! peanut butter and crack sandwich.


GroErr said:


> Good question, I've always questioned the premise that removing the bottom branches/popcorn gets more growth up top. If I have a problem with getting airflow then I don't have enough fans running. I'll selectively prune the bottom branches, usually during the stretch but only if I see nothing is going to grow there, otherwise I leave it, all of that little bud/popcorn goes into an oil/hash bin so no loss in weight imo, as long as you use it it's all good. Not that I'm trashing anyone for doing it and I don't scrog, I probably would trim a bit more in that style of grow as the canopy pretty well covers any light getting to the bottom. But for regular grows in soil imo it's better to open them up with LST/trellises to get light down there. I've never seen anything on this other than opinions, if someone can point out a study that has proven benefits I'm in, always open to improvements, just haven't seen anything solid. Cheers.


yea exactly, if your not scroging its pretty much pointless. those little popcorn nugs are perfect size for my bho tube


----------



## bf80255 (Sep 28, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> I just went to my boys house and he has the bottom 2 feet of all his plants empty... not a leaf not a bud... only sticks. I just don't get why someone would do it... he said air flow but really put another fuckin fan in there you know what I mean?
> 
> Anyways I just wanna know if there is any scientific evidence that this does anything good for the plant? He also said something about only getting big buds but he also strips the 2 feet in ONE day...
> 
> to me thats like taking a fuckin chainsaw to your ladies and asking them to perform great after.


have you ever ran a really tight SOG? impossible to avoid issues without labaratory settings or lollipopping that s why I do it


----------



## bf80255 (Sep 28, 2014)

GroErr said:


> Good question, I've always questioned the premise that removing the bottom branches/popcorn gets more growth up top. If I have a problem with getting airflow then I don't have enough fans running. I'll selectively prune the bottom branches, usually during the stretch but only if I see nothing is going to grow there, otherwise I leave it, all of that little bud/popcorn goes into an oil/hash bin so no loss in weight imo, as long as you use it it's all good. Not that I'm trashing anyone for doing it and I don't scrog, I probably would trim a bit more in that style of grow as the canopy pretty well covers any light getting to the bottom. But for regular grows in soil imo it's better to open them up with LST/trellises to get light down there. I've never seen anything on this other than opinions, if someone can point out a study that has proven benefits I'm in, always open to improvements, just haven't seen anything solid. Cheers.


I think its more for commercial growers they remove those "suckers" little popcorn nugs so the big top colas recieve all the potential nutrients and energy theyd be sapping leading to bigger more impressive colas (that hide fat heavy stem weight imo)


----------



## tip top toker (Sep 28, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> I can understand not wanting the smaller stuff but it makes good hash


You kind of just answered your own question. What if the grower doesn't want hash, but just bud. Makes sense to let the plant focus its energies on good bud, not airy stuff that's more leaf than bud.


----------



## Pass it Around (Sep 28, 2014)

bf80255 said:


> I think its more for commercial growers they remove those "suckers" little popcorn nugs so the big top colas recieve all the potential nutrients and energy theyd be sapping leading to bigger more impressive colas (that hide fat heavy stem weight imo)


Do you chop all of it off at one time or do you spread it out over a couple of days? I get what you mean about commercial growers needing to do it I have seen sea of greens with like 48 plants in one tray so that makes perfect sense to me. You can tell if air is getting through by the way the leaves move or not. 

the guys that I talked to said they do it all in one day and it seems a little more than stressful to the plant.


----------



## Pass it Around (Sep 28, 2014)

tip top toker said:


> You kind of just answered your own question. What if the grower doesn't want hash, but just bud. Makes sense to let the plant focus its energies on good bud, not airy stuff that's more leaf than bud.


makes sense, if they are indeed getting bigger buds on top I would have to say it makes up for the bottom missing. Less leaf to trim lololol I got done trimming this buddha tahoe last night and its got leafy leafy on the bottom half but in the middle of it is some little gems... today I don't think it is worth it because I only chopped it due to microseeding. BUT on other plants I might want them little nuggets.


----------



## bf80255 (Sep 28, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> Do you chop all of it off at one time or do you spread it out over a couple of days? I get what you mean about commercial growers needing to do it I have seen sea of greens with like 48 plants in one tray so that makes perfect sense to me. You can tell if air is getting through by the way the leaves move or not.
> 
> the guys that I talked to said they do it all in one day and it seems a little more than stressful to the plant.


very lightly, ill chop here and there as i go instead of just lopping off 50% at once just take a leaf here and there if its too crowded until it starts lookin real clean then ease up but it just depends on how your growing ive done 50% lops in the past with little ill effect its kinda strain dependent too. if your growing a purple urkle clone or a cross of urk then i would never suggest taking too much off at once (shits supe slow) but this strain shoots up fast so lopping is fine.


----------



## bf80255 (Sep 28, 2014)

those had like 6 inches of cleaned up stem and produced around 15 grams a pot of all organic bud. 1 gallon pots can be crammed like 40-50 deep into my tent.


----------



## Pass it Around (Sep 28, 2014)

bf80255 said:


> View attachment 3263430
> those had like 6 inches of cleaned up stem and produced around 15 grams a pot of all organic bud. 1 gallon pots can be crammed like 40-50 deep into my tent.


Thank you! the pictures make sense and I appreciate you not telling me to chope 50% off right off the bat  Your stuff is lookin purddy


----------



## Stompromper (Sep 29, 2014)

It's just like pruning the suckers off tomato plants.. they drain energy from the main vine and your fruits will suffer. Cutting all the small shot off the bottoms will definitely improve the over all size of your main colas.


----------



## tyson53 (Sep 29, 2014)

most bottom branches do not produce much to speak of...just takes energy away from the plant...its the weakest buds and more prone to rot..last yer when I had a small rot problem it was the lower popcorn buds that rotted first so I cut them all off....i am outside also..may differ indoors...they get hardly any light when the plant fills out...they also rob energy to the more productive bud sites...


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 29, 2014)

Gawd, another defoliation thread?



Stompromper said:


> It's just like pruning the suckers off tomato plants.. they drain energy from the main vine and your fruits will suffer.


Here we go again. When in the hell are you guys gonna learn something about photosynthesis, and what's this "energy" stuff? What energy are you talking about? Any leaf aka "sucker" on a tomato plant or cannabis contributes to the overall welfare of the plant doesn't matter where it's located. If it's not productive the plant will drop it on its own.

I grow tomatoes year long and have never pulled any leaves off. I mean, how stupid can you get?

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 29, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> Anyways I just wanna know if there is any scientific evidence that this does anything good for the plant?
> 
> to me thats like taking a fuckin chainsaw to your ladies and asking them to perform great after.


Stupid is as stupid does.

Scientific investigation requires strict control of variables and reproducibility of results to be valid. You will never see that in cannabis forums. You will be subjected to plenty of anecdotal evidence, hearsay, parroting of popular thought, hype and conjecture aka "seeing what you want to see".

UB


----------



## Pass it Around (Sep 29, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> Scientific investigation requires strict control of variables and reproducibility of results to be valid. You will never see that in cannabis forums. You will be subjected to plenty of anecdotal evidence, hearsay, parroting of popular thought, hype and conjecture aka "seeing what you want to see".
> 
> UB


Yup, no actual scientific studies being done with a control group. I understand this and that is why my plants keep every leaf they have unless it has gotten nasty. I grow bushes not twigs.

My curiosity was in seeing if anyone actual does try to do an experiment at least it would be a step in the right direction. I really can't believe my buddy chops 1/3 of his plant off... I mean literally 1/3 of his plant is bare as a babys ass.


----------



## bf80255 (Sep 29, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Gawd, another defoliation thread?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know about photosynthesis for the most part (im no scientist) the main reason i suggest anyone defoliate is for airflow and pest and disease prevention ( ounce worth a pound of cure) with intensive SOG setups otherwise i would not suggest removing fans until they want to come off ( fall off or a light tapping knocks them off) you also have to use your better judgment and if a leaf is over 50% necrotic or yellowing (color yellow attracts pests like fungus gnats and root aphids) then its probably best to just yank the bitch.

"energy"
In physics, *energy* is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed. The joule is the SI unit of energy, based on the amount transferred to an object by the mechanical work of moving it 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.[1]

Work and heat are two categories of processes or mechanisms that can transfer a given amount of energy. The second law of thermodynamics limits the amount of work that can be performed by energy that is obtained via a heating process—some energy is always lost as waste heat. The maximum amount that can go into work is called the available energy. Systems such as machines and living things often require available energy, not just any energy. Mechanical and other forms of energy can be transformed in the other direction into thermal energy without such limitations.

(from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy )


*Photosynthesis* is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the Sun, into chemical energy that can be later released to fuel the organisms' activities.

(google search "photosynthesis")

i beleive the specific "energy" in question is radiant energy and removing fan leaves from the lower 40% of your plant has little effect on yield imo (again you are correct purely anecdotal but I do what works and this hasnt hurt me in the past so I advocate responsible defoliation lol) as long as you do it early in flower maybe 4 weeks in at latest then ease up. and why deny a proven strategy that tomato gardeners know to work and produce larger more marketable fruits just as with cannabis removing lower "popcorn" bud sites allows the plants energy to be focused on the main cola "marketable fruit" look into apples and other arboreal fruit species as well taking off smaller weaker fruits is common practice to get the biggest and best looking fruits. now if yield is a concern and its just to fill your personal jars you may get slightly more weight without the removal of the little buds but its negligible in my experience.

removing fans does remove some of the plants stored sugars and carbs but the plant is also designed (very well) to produce those same sugars throughout its entire life it wont suddenly starve and die lol I know this from personal experience. and again uncle ben is correct this should all be taken with a grain of salt because last i checked no one on RIU gows in perfect laboratory settings.... no one.


----------



## Stompromper (Sep 29, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Gawd, another defoliation thread?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about leaves I'm talking about branches. You obviously don't know shit about growing tomatoes either.


----------



## natro.hydro (Sep 29, 2014)

When I was vegging these two clones I had going I was pinching off tops as often as I could and super cropping any stem I saw because I wanted them to have a great structure and pretty much flat canopy without SCROG. I accomplished that but I had to clean up the lower parts because there was no getting airflow into the middle of these things, just to much foliage and would have wind burned my plants just trying. Now I am sure most will say I only have to do this because I use LEDs and I agree to some extent, but selective pruning is necessary in my experience albeit limited to growing with LEDs since I have never used an HID.
Anyways here is a before and after pic of the last time I cleaned em up before they went to flower. 
    
So this is why I lollipop/thin the lower branches. Not scientific I know but when I don't get aggressive with the pruning I end up displeased with what is down there at harvest. Not to mention I hate trimming those so they just go right to the hash pile.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Sep 30, 2014)

I've done the side by side lollipop. I've done way more then that. And I only top my plants once and never cut the tip of a main branch. I take everything off below the top 20 inches indoors and top 2 feet outdoors. Let veg back five days and flip. I yield over 2.5 pounds per 1000 watt light in a 25 sqft area. In organics and soil.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Sep 30, 2014)

This is what one gallon pots look like in my garden. I can fit 36 under one light in a 5x5 tent. Produce 20 to 35 grams per plant. That's about 3 pounds per light. In soil. Organically. Welcome to the big leagues.


----------



## dankdope (Sep 30, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Gawd, another defoliation thread?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the defolihater troll strikes again, clearly the people that want to talk about pruning, defoliating and lolipopping couldn't give a flying fuck about what you've read somewhere on google. being reasonably new to growing I would read all your posts you seemed knowledgable but know I realise you are a total arrogant joke with no life, most of your stuff seems copy paste crap from the www with piss all pics, proof and only a small backing from loyal supporters which almost seem like you under another account? mind your own f**king business and go back to admiring your precious avatar pic of a plant you may or may not have (but clearly %100 think you did) grow back in the 80s.


----------



## Aeroknow (Sep 30, 2014)

I wouldn't even be able to water my plants, if I didn't lollipop.  
And I don't consider lollipopping to be the same as defoliating.


----------



## chuck estevez (Sep 30, 2014)

Cannasutraorganics said:


> View attachment 3264482 This is what one gallon pots look like in my garden. I can fit 36 under one light in a 5x5 tent. *Produce 20 to 35 grams per plant*. That's about 3 pounds per light. In soil. Organically. Welcome to the big leagues.


I don't chop nothing, grow 9 plants in a 5x5 area and get 112 or more grams per plant.using nutrients, call it organic or not, you wouldn't know. You are still in the minors son.


----------



## Stompromper (Sep 30, 2014)

Soon as someone talks shit about someone pruning suckers off tomato plants throws flags for me.

Buffalo said.


----------



## chuck estevez (Sep 30, 2014)

Stompromper said:


> Soon as someone talks shit about someone pruning suckers off tomato plants throws flags for me.
> 
> Buffalo said.


Damn, as much as I like UB, i never grew a tomato plant, but look at #6 in this link I found. http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/secrets-tomato-growing-success?page=0,9


----------



## chuck estevez (Sep 30, 2014)

also found this,
Should I be pruning off the lower branches of my tomato plants? How far off of the ground should the lower branches be?

Pruning is not necessary, but some people do it to keep soil that might harbor diseases from splashing up on the leaves; 12 to 18 inches from the ground ought to do it.
Is it true that pinching off the flowers on the tomato plant helps it to produce more fruit?

It will not help production, but it could increase the size of the tomatoes left on the vine by a little bit.


----------



## chuck estevez (Sep 30, 2014)

and this.
*To Pinch out Suckers or Not*

Some gardeners prune tomatoes by pinching out suckers or the leafy shoots that grow from leaf axils. The leaf axil is the "V" between the central trunk (stem) and lateral branches.

Here is how you determine whether to remove suckers or not. 

If left on the plant, suckers will keep growing and usually produce fruit. It can be helpful sometimes to prune suckers out so the overall plant doesn't get top-heavy, or produce more fruit than the plant can mature in time for fall. Just keep in mind, if you prune them, you will get fewer, but larger fruit.

You can let some of the suckers stay on if you want, suckers don't hurt anything. It's up to you how you want your tomatoes to grow. For instance, if your plants are allowed to sprawl along the ground as I do with my tomato plants, I never remove any suckers at all! 

If you just don't know, try pruning one plant and not another, and see how each one turns out. That way you'll know for sure which technique works best for you.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Sep 30, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> I don't chop nothing, grow 9 plants in a 5x5 area and get 112 or more grams per plant.using nutrients, call it organic or not, you wouldn't know. You are still in the minors son.


You have no math abilities do you? Your producing 2 pounds per light. I'm doing 3+. And I do nine 5 gallon pots under one light. But I produce 180 grams per plant. That's 3.5 pounds per light. I also do 16 three gallons under one light and get 4 pounds per light. And all are lollipopped. Go back to school. Dumbass...


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Sep 30, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> you're the one that said you get 20 to 35 grams per plant, did you not????????????????
> now it's 180 per plant? how is my math wrong when you said you get barely over an ounce per plant. Now that you changed it, sure, it adds up, but I only went off what YOU posted, so fuck you.


 Said with 36 plants in the room. I was comparing apples to apples. He was talking about one gallon pots. I grow in many different sizes at the same time. I use pots you've never heard of. So when you brought up five gallons I explained my five gallon grow. You didn't do the math. I even said about 3 pounds and you still didn't add yours up. And how much of yours is little popcorn nugs? That's hash material at best and isn't included in my numbers. Only dense top grade buds.


----------



## chuck estevez (Sep 30, 2014)

Cannasutraorganics said:


> Said with 36 plants in the room. I was comparing apples to apples. He was talking about one gallon pots. I grow in many different sizes at the same time. I use pots you've never heard of. So when you brought up five gallons I explained my five gallon grow. You didn't do the math. I even said about 3 pounds and you still didn't add yours up. And how much of yours is little popcorn nugs? That's hash material at best and isn't included in my numbers. Only dense top grade buds.


yep. you're right, I thought you were talking about 5 gal plants with 9 at an ounce each, my apologies.


----------



## Stompromper (Sep 30, 2014)

Pruning the suckers 1. Keeps more of the sugar producing leaving in direct sunlight, which believe it or not is important. And 2. Keeps the sugars produced by those leaves in the light flowing up one main vine. 

Whoever said that it will not improve yield is full of shit. You will have much larger tomatoes on a properly pruned vine than one that is left alone. The vine that is not pruned and left to go will have more tomatoes but they will be smaller. 

It also makes a difference if you are growing determinate or indeterminate plants. 

Weed works the same way.. cut the suckers and more of the sugars will flow to the mains and not be wasted on a bunch of larf.

But I'm sure uncle know it all will tell us differently cause we're just stupid, uneducated retards.


----------



## Dankfactory (Sep 30, 2014)

MachiavellI420 said:


> if you take all the stupid little airy buds off the bottoms of each branch it gives the plant no choice but to concentrate all its energy on the only buds remaining on the branch. it works really good for lst, or scrog grows.


This. 
"Scientific Study" Thanks. That made me laugh. 
Ever taken a look up into the sky? The sun rises one on end, travels over the earth and ultimately sets. If you were a cannabis plant in the wild this would provide you with plenty of light on the sides and undergrowth. In a grow room your lights are stationary. A plants yield is pretty much predetermined, it's simply up to the grower to maximize efficiency with certain techniques so there is zero dead space. All of that undergrowth is spindly, unlit mass that not only hinders airflow, it also pulls potential energy that could've been sent to the top of the canopy. Do I have a Stanford double blind study to prove this? Negative. But you'd have to be an inferior "grower" to dispute the results of thousands who have documented proof of success with the method.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Sep 30, 2014)

Stompromper said:


> Keeps more of the sugar producing leaving in direct sunlight, which believe it or not is important.


This is the part that makes the affirmative argument, for me.

How can the stuff that isn't getting direct light, still produce something worth the energy consumed? If those leaves are in shade (from the top of the plant), they aren't "pulling their weight," and so energy they _should_ be harnessing for their own local fruit, has to be diverted from the energy harnessed by the upper leaves, which are in direct light... but in diverting that energy harnessed by those upper leaves, what impact does said energy diversion (or dilution) have on the top-local bud/fruit sites?

I would expect that if the top leaves are having to carry the whole load of light energy conversion, then they most likely won't be producing their best fruits at the top OR the bottom... because photosynthetic efficiency has limits, perhaps? How many buds can one whole leaf efficiently make?

However, increasing light penetration depth, would then move into the realm of having more leaves harnessing energy, per light source, in which case it might be much better to minimize pruning (or, it's always better to "minimize" pruning, in that you want to do it as little as possible, just on the "minimized" side of exactly the right amount). Pruning too much is obviously increasingly detrimental, after a point... but knocking off a couple shaded bottom leaves probably has an irrelevant amount of impact.

So, probably best to try to keep as much of the plant as you can, bearing in mind a few fundamentals, such as "leaves need direct light to photosynthesize at maximum efficiency, so shaded leaves will consume energy to grow, but won't give much back in the form of harnessed light energy..." so probably better to remove anything that isn't getting ANY direct light, and perhaps even stuff that gets less than 50% direct light.

You wouldn't want to spend a bunch of money on solar panels to harness sunlight, and then place them in the shade... so why would you want to spend a bunch of the plant's energy to grow leaves that won't touch enough light to be worth growing? Nip them as soon as you know they won't get enough light to be worth the energy required to grow them. Waiting longer is wasting energy (e.g. resources, nutrients, electricity, time...). If you wait too long and they become retarded branches (slowed and with little chance to fully develop), maybe try to manipulate the canopy so they get light... or just chop 'em.

All i can cite is the wealth of information available on this topic (this site and others), and limited personal experience.

I can see both sides here, but through my own experiences, have discovered which side of that line i reside. Sure, it's cool to "just let the plant do its thing, man!" but sometimes living things don't do their best (or what you want) unless you manipulate or modify them in some way.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Sep 30, 2014)

So far nobody on this thread has hit the nail on the head about this. Some dancing around the facts and much conjecture. 
In the wild they loose most leaves before the bud is half grown. Unless we water it often. And in the wild they all make seeds. So nothing we are doing is like the wild. Get that first. Now using natural responses to different stimuli is an effective way to get the results we want without manipulating and overloading crap in them. Entice them to do what you want. The information on weed Is vast from 100 to 600 years ago. Many cultures have detailed studied it and it's reactions to stimuli and changes in nutes and many other things. Go on MIT website for some great books. Some writings on it in china and India go back 3000+ years. Extraction and tinctures. Tricom development. Uses. How to increase potency. Asians are great at getting the most out of what the grow and do.


----------



## bud nugbong (Sep 30, 2014)

I am also on the boat of putting the energy elsewhere. Usually as the plants are growing up you can tell which branches are skinnier because of lack of light. I trim those lower branches during veg, then once flowering begins I look for the Bud sites on the inside or lower parts of branches. Just pinching these off and usually taking the fan leaf with it.
Last year I did not do any of this, and I was hating all of the small popcorn nugs. Too much work trimming for not much nuggetry. I really think pinching and removing those branches have no effect on final yield. They get the same amount of food and water for the rest of the year, they can just concentrate on putting the energy into the main branches...I did it this year and am very happy with the results.
This one in the pic Only gets good light from above so I did a lot of trimming and its doing great. All of my others I trimmed like that and ive never had colas like these. A big thumbs up from me.

*no pinching after 2 weeks flowering


----------



## Dankfactory (Sep 30, 2014)

Cannasutraorganics said:


> So far nobody on this thread has hit the nail on the head about this. Some dancing around the facts and much conjecture.
> *In the wild* they loose most leaves before the bud is half grown. *Unless we water it often*. And in the wild they all make seeds. So nothing we are doing is like the wild. Get that first. Now using natural responses to different stimuli is an effective way to get the results we want without manipulating and overloading crap in them. Entice them to do what you want. The information on weed Is vast from 100 to 600 years ago. Many cultures have detailed studied it and it's reactions to stimuli and changes in nutes and many other things. Go on MIT website for some great books. Some writings on it in china and India go back 3000+ years. Extraction and tinctures. Tricom development. Uses. How to increase potency. Asians are great at getting the most out of what the grow and do.


"In the Wild" doesn't necessarily have to mean a Wild cannabis plant. Go plant a few clones in the forest. Great Scott! You just, well, you just planted a few clones.. In the Wild!
Unless we water often? Well, how else are we going to maximize the potential harvest? Your point escapes me. 
The rest of your post is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand, and merely a trifled attempt at sounding esteemed and educated. The purpose of the thread is to explain why growers eliminate the bottom growth in a grow room setting. *Actual modern cannabis growers *are the definitive experts on growing cannabis. Some of course, more than others..


----------



## Milovan (Sep 30, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> I am also on the boat of putting the energy elsewhere. Usually as the plants are growing up you can tell which branches are skinnier because of lack of light. I trim those lower branches during veg, then once flowering begins I look for the Bud sites on the inside or lower parts of branches. Just pinching these off and usually taking the fan leaf with it.
> Last year I did not do any of this, and I was hating all of the small popcorn nugs. Too much work trimming for not much nuggetry. I really think pinching and removing those branches have no effect on final yield. They get the same amount of food and water for the rest of the year, they can just concentrate on putting the energy into the main branches...I did it this year and am very happy with the results.


This is exactly how I look at it as well.
Very well said!


----------



## Milovan (Sep 30, 2014)

Dankfactory said:


> Your point escapes me.
> The rest of your post is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand, and merely a trifled attempt at sounding esteemed and educated. *The purpose of the thread is to explain why growers eliminate the bottom growth in a grow room setting.* *Actual modern cannabis growers *are the definitive experts on growing cannabis. Some of course, more than others..


OP never mentioned anything about a 'grow room setting".


----------



## st0wandgrow (Sep 30, 2014)

Stompromper said:


> But I'm sure uncle know it all will tell us differently cause we're just stupid, uneducated retards.


Yep. He only advocates chopping off the *top* half of the plant.


----------



## Pass it Around (Sep 30, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> Yep. He only advocates chopping off the *top* half of the plant.


 im like switzerland right now, only I don't bank nazi gold. I am truly neutral in this debate until I make my own scientific experiments using the same clone. I am going to try 6 and 6. If I get better weight off the lollipopped I am going to tell uncle ben to choke on a bag of dicks. Instead of being even slightly helpful he just trashes them. I think him and uncle buck might be boyfriends.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Sep 30, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> im like switzerland right now, only I don't bank nazi gold. I am truly neutral in this debate until I make my own scientific experiments using the same clone. I am going to try 6 and 6. If I get better weight off the lollipopped I am going to tell uncle ben to choke on a bag of dicks. Instead of being even slightly helpful he just trashes them. I think him and uncle buck might be boyfriends.



I've done both. I've never bothered to meticulously document the exact differences in yield, but I'll tell you that you won't lose anything by cleaning up the bottom branches.

I get rid of them just for the sake of convenience. Not having branches/bud hanging in the soil and getting splashed by fish goop when Im watering. Plus I hate fucking trimming that shit.


----------



## Dankfactory (Sep 30, 2014)

Milovan said:


> OP never mentioned anything about a 'grow room setting".


Yes. He did. Notice how in post #1 there is a reference to "air flow," and, why not just put a fan *in* *there.*
Reading comprehension can be fun.


----------



## Milovan (Sep 30, 2014)

Dankfactory said:


> Yes. He did. Notice how in post #1 there is a reference to "air flow ," and, why not just put a fan *in* *there.*
> Reading comprehension can be fun.


Personally, I have a greenhouse with 4 fans *in there *for air flow.
Still, the op never mentioned anything about a grow room setting.
Reading comprehension can be fun.


----------



## chuck estevez (Sep 30, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> I've done both. I've never bothered to meticulously document the exact differences in yield, but I'll tell you that you won't lose anything by cleaning up the bottom branches.
> 
> I get rid of them just for the sake of convenience. Not having branches/bud hanging in the soil and getting splashed by fish goop when Im watering. Plus I hate fucking trimming that shit.


stow, did you ever meet up with that douchenozzle? It got awful quiet after that and i haven't seen him around here.


----------



## Pass it Around (Sep 30, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> stow, did you ever meet up with that douchenozzle? It got awful quiet after that and i haven't seen him around here.


Your talking about that dude slanging DnS ? Dirty n Shatty seeds.


----------



## chuck estevez (Sep 30, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> Your talking about that dude slanging DnS ? Dirty n Shatty seeds.


yeah, i think that's the same dude.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Sep 30, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> stow, did you ever meet up with that douchenozzle? It got awful quiet after that and i haven't seen him around here.


He didn't show. I work right down the road from there. The thread got locked, and instead of starting a new thread to stir the pot further I decided to drop it. lol


----------



## st0wandgrow (Sep 30, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> Your talking about that dude slanging DnS ? Dirty n Shatty seeds.





chuck estevez said:


> yeah, i think that's the same dude.


Eh? This cat is involved in DnS Genetics?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 30, 2014)

Got a field to disk tomorrow. Am feeling lazy. Talked to mah cannabis plants. They're gonna loan me some of dat energy tanks to dah dem suckers I yanked off. Now, where did I put dat energy?

Oh, ah remember now. it's in the the secret RIU Energy Jar!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 30, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> I've done both. I've never bothered to meticulously document the exact differences in yield, but I'll tell you that you won't lose anything by cleaning up the bottom branches.
> 
> I get rid of them just for the sake of convenience. Not having branches/bud hanging in the soil and getting splashed by fish goop when Im watering. Plus I hate fucking trimming that shit.


Never seen any of that monkey doo doo you claim to do. Got any pix?


----------



## st0wandgrow (Sep 30, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Never seen any of that monkey doo doo you claim to do. Got any pix?



Sure. Couple phone pics....


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Not bad for a mutt. So easy even a cave man can do it.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> I've done both. I've never bothered to meticulously document the exact differences in yield, but I'll tell you that you won't lose anything by cleaning up the bottom branches.


By the same token, you won't gain anything either. Before a plant drops a leaf based on a low CO2 flag it extracts "the goodies".

Here's a lady is claiming to be an authority on tomato growing recommending your grandma's subscription for plucking off the "suckers" to increase tomato production. She needs a course on photosynthesis and what makes a plant tick. The leaves coming from the petiole axis of a tomato or cannabis plant are not "suckers, like her and followrs. They are not a "sink". They are green, contain chlorophyll and produce carbos for the plants' use. 

Guess everyone has their comfort zone and religious beliefs.
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/pros-cons-removing-leaves-tomato-plants-75584.html


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Interesting story. This man gets it.....

"I do not pinch back plants nor do I sucker......

.....Our sole focus here has got to be to get the plants into the ground as soon as possible in springtime so they can grow and set fruit before the temperatures arrive that impede pollination and fertilization. If you are pinching back your plants, you are setting back fruit production, and frankly, we cannot afford to do that here....

When I lived in Texas, I had a pretty unfriendly next-door neighbor who really wouldn't even say hello in return if you said hello to her, so I was not inclined to offer her my unsolicited garden advice. I watched quietly all summer long during the one and only summer she attempted to grow tomatoes as she staked her plants to 6' tall stakes _and religiously removed every single branch and every single bloom. She basically had a 6' tall stem with very few leaves and no fruit. _

After we had been harvesting ripe tomatoes for weeks, her husband came over and asked me what she was doing wrong. I remember that my first words to him were _"Where do I begin?"_. After I explained that by removing all the limbs, she was removing most all the leaves and that was impeding photosynthesis and growth....and that by removing all the flowers she was removing the fruit since the flowers are the first step in fruit set....well, do you see where our conversation was going? I told him that she must be reading a book written for "yankees" and that the techniques they recommended do not work in our climate.

Before he left our house, he pondered the situation and then told me he thought it best if he not mention to her everything he'd learned and maybe we could just forget he stopped by. I grimly nodded and agreed....

....Clearly I am totally opposed to pinching back plants, and I feel almost as strongly about suckering. Since every leaf that grows contributes to photosythesis, and since every leaf that grows shelters the enlarging tomatoes from the direct sunlight and helps protect the fruit from sunscald damage, I almost never remove a sucker for any reason. Some people do sucker the plants if they want larger (but fewer) fruit, but I'd rather have 6 medium-sized tomatoes than 2 big ones, for example."
http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/okgard/msg0109563924602.html?9

That site is where many of you need to lurk! ^


----------



## Stompromper (Oct 1, 2014)

Impeding growth my ass.. my pruned tomato plants were 15 feet tall and 5 plants produced enough bushels of tomatoes to can and last me 2 years. 

Your a book smart imbecile.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> ...every leaf that grows contributes to photosynthesis


What about those which receive zero direct light? Are they "contributing to" photosynthesis? Without receiving sufficient light? Seems like that would be impossible, since photosynthesis is the conversion of light energy to plant energy. 

If these unlighted leaves are actually "contributing," then what is the cost:benefit ratio of their contribution versus their energy cost, to be grown? Where does the energy to grow that unlighted leaf, come from? Where else can that energy be more effectively harnessed and used? 

If only half of your total leaves are touching light, then your plant is not photosynthesizing as efficiently as it could, but is instead diverting the available harnessed energy, to grow things that Can't optimally contribute, due to not touching light. Sure, they could be used as nute storage banks, and i agree that leaving the stored nutes connected is probably helpful in certain circumstances... but a shaded leaf is not optimally contributing to photosynthesis, and i would prefer the plant use the maximum amount of available energy to build 1) leaves where light actually touches, and 2) fruit. I don't want my light energy being converted to unlighted growth which cannot efficiently use light energy to aid overall photosynthesis. If it's not touching light, it's "sucking" energy (hence the term), but not giving it back, because it can't touch light, and can't contribute effectively or efficiently, to total photosynthetic process. 

But hey, if i have some nice healthy leaves that were once directly lighted, but which have become shaded due to new top growth, i'll leave them as long as i can, as long as they're not blocking anything else that i want touching light directly. Plus, i don't want overcrowding or mold issues, or excess places for pests to hide. So i think it's a legit tactic in the right circumstances; identifying the right circumstances in which this practice is useful, is key. Obviously, you don't want to remove what would otherwise produce as desired (which a shaded, puny, neglected "sucker," will not).


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Stompromper said:


> Impeding growth my ass.. my pruned tomato plants were 15 feet tall and 5 plants produced enough bushels of tomatoes to can and last me 2 years.
> 
> Your a book smart imbecile.


And you're a sophomore. What's a sophomore you ask? It's an ignorant freshman that has graduated from the status of a Freshman fool. 

I practically have a PhD in horticulture with all the quality info I've read, hundreds of workshops I've attended which includes field studies, college classes not to mention 45+ years of growing about everything under the sun.

Oh, nice anecdotal evidence ya got there.

If you're doing 15' tall plants under greenhouse conditions, then you abide by how many leaves it takes to produce X amount of pounds per s.f., retain those leaves, and remove many at the bottom levels. The rule of thumb with vineyard management is it takes 13-15 leaves to mature a cluster of grapes. But folks in cannabis forums are not sophisticated or smart enough to figure how many leaves and what size it takes to get X amount of oz/plant.

Don't know about you guys, but I don't think anyone here is growing 15' tall plants. Grew close to that outdoors in full sun....still had popcorn buds at the bottom. So much for the myth that lack of light causes popcorn buds.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> What about those which receive zero direct light? Are they "contributing to" photosynthesis? Without receiving sufficient light? Seems like that would be impossible, since photosynthesis is the conversion of light energy to plant energy.


Can you guys READ and do some research? For the tenth fuckin' time, red and far red light penetrates the canopy, AND, if the leaves don't contribute the plant will pull the metabolites and NPK, etc. out of it and drop it on its own. That action is triggered by a CO2 flag. IOW, if the leaf is not processing X amount of CO2, the mother plant will consider it baggage, of no use, and drop it. 

See my red sig line.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Stompromper said:


> my pruned tomato plants were 15 feet tall and 5 plants produced enough bushels of tomatoes to can and last me 2 years.


Bullshit....


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Can you guys READ and do some research? For the tenth fuckin' time, red and far red light penetrates the canopy.
> 
> See my red sig line.


*Excess red and far red, penetrate.

Yes, it does, but to varying degrees. And this then causes specific effects and/or reactions in the parts of the plant receiving different (and perhaps insufficient) amounts and wavelengths. I've been doing research for what i consider to be a significant amount of time now (especially since i'm in the LED camp, where we have increased incentive to take note of spectral differences and specific wavelengths, since eliminating "wasted light" is one of the efficiency benefits of LED...). How much useful light actually passes through a nearly opaque top leaf? Two nearly opaque top leaves? Three? According to my own visual assessment: not very damn much! When i see wilting under-leaves, but everything else looks great, this tells me those under-leaves are Not getting enough useful light, despite the granted fact that certain wavelengths do indeed pass through. At some point, all the useful photons have been snared by leaf material; if any leaf material remains beyond this point, they are not getting enough light, which is where my previous comment comes from: spend energy to grow under-leaves which will never get enough light to contribute effectively, or snip them before the plant spends energy to grow something that cannot contribute (and thus causes detriment via wasted energy)?

Also there is the issue of insufficient horizontal space, in which case 'lollipopping' becomes more relevant. If your lamp can only penetrate, say, 2 layers of canopy... you don't need to spend harnessed energy to grow a third layer of canopy, because they won't get enough light to develop properly, and will therefore spend more energy than they contribute (and on insufficient development, for that matter). That third unlighted canopy is terribly inefficient, because it takes energy to grow something suboptimal, but is also unable to contribute as much as it spends or "sucks." It is a negative sum-total. An unlighted leaf consumes more than it makes, which is both inefficient and possibly detrimental to overall plant health. If you're burning ~90% efficient electricity to grow a <50% efficient plant... that seems not good, to me. I want as much of the energy as possible to be used as effectively as possible. Plus i like being able to access my soil, whether for watering or just poking around, so anything between the top of the soil and the screen, or perhaps my lowest useful canopy level (method depending), is really just causing problems and reducing efficiency overall.

And then we can head on over into mainlining territory, where, apparently, it actually matters which flowers come from which nodes. If you have a 2ft skinny branch with shaded leaves, which will likely only produce a "popcorn" bud, does that seem good to you? I'd rather have 32 colas branched from the lowest node, than a bunch of stem-spaghetti and popcorn everywhere.

It seems kinda ridiculous to get worked up over a useful technique, used by Others, just because you feel it's not helpful in YOUR situation.

If you have enough light in all the right places, keep everything! But most of us don't have that. So some of us try to maximize the efficiency of our configurations, by eliminating what WE feel is "wasted" energy. Yes, that energy "is consumed," but that is not the point: what is produced as a result of that consumption, is the point. If the energy my plant is receiving, is only being half-effectively used, that is inefficient, and is an insufficient efficiency rating, in my book.

If i couldn't read, and hadn't done research, i wouldn't even have an opinion on this matter. I'm only here BECAUSE i Can read, and Have done research, and have directly observed factors and results, related to this topic.

It's easy to see why some people would want to prune the inferior parts, which are expected to remain inferior, due to insufficient lighting for 3rd or 4th+ level canopies. Those photons don't just continue infinitely, they get harnessed. Below that, leaves aren't receiving light, and can't contribute, and can't develop, but still consume energy to be maintained. Eliminate that useless energy consumption, preferably before it ever grows, and what is effectively and efficiently harnessed by the rest of the plant, can be put to better use. Makes plenty of sense to me. ^^


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

1. Glad my plants can't read,

2. Popcorn buds is NOT about light.


----------



## st0wandgrow (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Not bad for a mutt. So easy even a cave man can do it.



Thanks old man. Let's see some of your work. Being the expert that you are, I'm assuming it's going to blow everyone away......


----------



## Stompromper (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Bullshit....


Bullshit? I can backup my Bullshit with pics.. can you?


----------



## Stompromper (Oct 1, 2014)

Early in the season before they even started fruiting.. my wife is 6 feet.. they grew up 6 feet then over back down to the ground and out another 3 feet. After we harvested and pulled the vines we measured them.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> 1. Glad my plants can't read,
> 
> 2. Popcorn buds is NOT about light.


If cannabis could read, they'd probably deliberately hermie and thoroughly self-pollinate. I doubt any sentient creature with enough intellectual capacity to understand english, would approve of being grown purely for consumption by another type of creature. 

I'd like to hear more about how tiny popcorn buds has nothing to do with light... but while also having nothing to do with that whole plant-energy-distribution thing. 

I won't complain if i learn something new today.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> Thanks old man. Let's see some of your work. Being the expert that you are, I'm assuming it's going to blow everyone away......


Been posting gardens for the last 15 years. Where have you been?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> If cannabis could read, they'd probably deliberately hermie and thoroughly self-pollinate. I doubt any sentient creature with enough intellectual capacity to understand english, would approve of being grown purely for consumption by another type of creature.
> 
> I'd like to hear more about how tiny popcorn buds has nothing to do with light... but while also having nothing to do with that whole plant-energy-distribution thing.
> 
> *I won't complain if i learn something new today*.


May I suggest you start by finding all posts in the many defoi threads I've posted to. I really get tired of repeating myself with every new crop of noobs.


----------



## Pass it Around (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> May I suggest you start by finding all posts in the many defoi threads I've posted to. I really get tired of repeating myself with every new crop of noobs.


Hey Uncle Ben I do appreciate your wisdom, I do also understand how you go from super nice to cut throat lickidy split. It is frustrating trying to teach others when they already refuse to accept what they are trying to learn. 

it is like going into a politics class dead set on your party and anything the teacher says good bad or indifferent about the other party your like yeahhh fuck those guys they don't know shit.. even if they do have valid points.

I don't know if that makes sense but its a compliment to you as well as I think I understand now your frustration and I apologize for calling you Uncle Bucks boyfriend.. Buck is an asshole just to be an asshole your just frustrated with the stupidity of mankind.

<3 thanks for the knowledge, I will continue to let them have their leaves.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> Hey Uncle Ben I do appreciate your wisdom, I do also understand how you go from super nice to cut throat lickidy split. It is frustrating trying to teach others when they already refuse to accept what they are trying to learn.
> 
> it is like going into a politics class dead set on your party and anything the teacher says good bad or indifferent about the other party your like yeahhh fuck those guys they don't know shit.. even if they do have valid points.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the post. Yeah, I get grumpy with fools...don't take them lightly. One thing that's a given, they all have to learn the hard way. 

BTW, love Dave Chappelle! The village race baiter needs to watch this one, hah! http://www.cc.com/video-clips/mlg0y7/chappelle-s-show-the-niggar-family---uncensored


----------



## Pass it Around (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Thanks for the post. Yeah, I get grumpy with fools...don't take them lightly. One thing that's a given, they all have to learn the hard way.
> 
> BTW, love Dave Chappelle! The village race baiter needs to watch this one, hah! http://www.cc.com/video-clips/mlg0y7/chappelle-s-show-the-niggar-family---uncensored


One of my favorite episodes, I love Dave Chappelle. I wish he was never pushed out of the comedy scene. I laughed my ass off for years watching his standup comedy and shows. This picture in my avatar was one of my favorite episodes he is as good an actor as comedian imo.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Stompromper said:


> Early in the season before they even started fruiting.. my wife is 6 feet.. they grew up 6 feet then over back down to the ground and out another 3 feet. After we harvested and pulled the vines we measured them.


Sounds like a lot of unnecessary leaf and stem to me. 

We can maters, okra, cuke pickles, beans, etc. Maters are about done for this year, been bearing for months. I grow them in 5' tall X 3'D cages made out of concrete mesh. Garden produced well this year and will soon get my second crop of taters. BHN 589 maters in greenhouse are loaded. That's my winter crop until next June. Then there's tons of huge peaches off 2 trees, huge blackberries, olives, pomegranates, outdoor satsumas to come next year, premium wine grapes, pecans and in the greenhouse? Gourmet avocados, citrus, pitaya, pineapple, mango, hatch chiles, herbs, etc. Got homemade white wine vinegar going and as soon as I source pots of french tarragon and grow it out a bit am going to bottle tarragon infused vinegar.






*....everything's honky dory until this happens!*


----------



## Pass it Around (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Sounds like a lot of unnecessary leaf and stem to me.
> 
> We can maters, okra, cuke pickles, beans, etc. Maters are about done for this year, been bearing for months. I grow them in 5' tall X 3'D cages made out of concrete mesh. Garden produces like a mofo this year and will soon get my second crop of taters. BHN 589 maters in greenhouse are loaded. That's my winter crop until next June.
> 
> ...


hot diggidy damn blackberries are bigger than my balls! I would love to be your neighbor lolol! I have a lot of older gents in my area and they all grow so we share our buds but if they were growing food I would be happier because everyone loves to eat!


----------



## Stompromper (Oct 1, 2014)

Unnecessary leaf and stem? Unnecessary leaf you said lmao.. 


They were tomatoes top to bottom. They served their purpose.


----------



## Pass it Around (Oct 1, 2014)

Stompromper said:


> Unnecessary leaf and stem? Unnecessary leaf you said lmao..
> 
> 
> They were tomatoes top to bottom. They served their purpose.


I am pretty sure he was being sarcastic


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Dave, where do you live? Be glad to share my secrets. I'm a variety freak. Wish I could show off my pix of us juicing blood oranges, meyer lemons and stuff from the greenhouse. We put up gallons of juice from single greenhouse trees. Was about 70 blood oranges. My signature margarita is made with homegrown Moro blood orange juice, key limes, tequila and triple sec. Got a young key lime that is producing really big fruit for that variety. Let them turn yellow for maximum flavor. When they come off with a very light tug, it's perfection!



Yep, those blackberries are huge. Kiowa. http://www.womacknursery.com/berries.html

Off of only 9 crowns of asparagus I pull, for months, one handful twice a day. After a while wife sees me coming with that stuff and yells "put it back!!!!.  Local executive chef wants it next year.


----------



## Pass it Around (Oct 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Dave, where do you live? Be glad to share my secrets. I'm a variety freak. Wish I could show off my pix of us juicing blood oranges, meyer lemons and stuff from the greenhouse. We put up gallons of juice from single greenhouse trees. Was about 70 blood oranges. My signature margarita is made with homegrown Moro blood orange juice, key limes, tequila and triple sec. Got a young key lime that is producing really big fruit for that variety. Let them turn yellow for maximum flavor. When they come off with a very light tug, it's perfection!
> 
> View attachment 3265475
> 
> ...


I am living in the mountains  lake tahoe california


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> hot diggidy damn blackberries are bigger than my balls!


Same color too. 

We eat well. I get neighbor's farm eggs, neighbor gets my maters and stuff. Have a lady's banded galloway cows on part of my land (hope to get some meat off those grass fed naturals). Get free range chickens by swapping grapes with her, etc. Quite a gal. Asked how she butchers. Said for the best meat you don't cut off the head to tense up and set the muscles. Hangs them upside down with their necks hanging out a cone, slits their throats with an ultra sharp knife. Humane, they go unconcious and the meat is super tender. 5 lb. hens! Yeah, it's a good life. We love to eat and drink. Tonight is artery clogging night - a fry in of fish, okra, sweet potato fries, onion rings. Washed down with a Sauvignon blanc, yah sah! Any wine left over goes into my white wine vinegar batch.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 1, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> I am living in the mountains  lake tahoe california


Gawd, must be nice! Probably too cold for most veggies except for the brassicas, carrots, garlic, lettuce, spinach, etc.


----------



## Breko (Oct 1, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> I just went to my boys house and he has the bottom 2 feet of all his plants empty... not a leaf not a bud... only sticks. I just don't get why someone would do it... he said air flow but really put another fuckin fan in there you know what I mean?
> 
> Anyways I just wanna know if there is any scientific evidence that this does anything good for the plant? He also said something about only getting big buds but he also strips the 2 feet in ONE day...
> 
> to me thats like taking a fuckin chainsaw to your ladies and asking them to perform great after.


Lollipopping is where it's AT. SCROG anyways...


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 2, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> May I suggest you start by finding all posts in the many defoi threads I've posted to. I really get tired of repeating myself with every new crop of noobs.


Since you already know where you've published all this information, you could just, you know, throw a link... not exactly repeating yourself, IMO. 

I still think that the leaves that get direct light are photosynthesizing more efficiently (and thus their leaves are "worth more"), which is a significant contributor to fruit/flower development, and that without enough light, whether direct or filtered through a canopy, fruit/flower will not develop as well... and that eliminating those inferior/insufficient growths, prevents "wasted" energy, spent to grow leaves and branches and retarded fruits/flowers. You never see giant colas in the shade. The biggest stuff is at the top, because... ? Surely the best light being at the top, not under the canopy, is a significant factor, if not the primary one. From what i've seen, the stuff that gets the most light will develop the best/biggest. 

Although... there is a case to be made for "trim," and using tiny underdeveloped nugs for things like hash and cooking, so it doesn't HAVE to be labeled "waste," but if you're aiming for best colas and not "larf," then i think it's right to eliminate anything that won't become what you want it to become, due to its position among the structure. Plus, there's the whole issue of humidity and crowding, but i digress. There are many valid reasons to prune, and it's not always a bad thing, if used appropriately. 

Not sure how that can be justifiably called "stupidity" by any credible person.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 2, 2014)

I do agree when i a plant cant use the leaves it eats there resources and the leaf will die. i loose leaves all the time. I know they are supposed to stay gree but i have not figured that out yet. Well i did in AIS but not this run without AIS.


----------



## skunkd0c (Oct 2, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> 1. Glad my plants can't read,
> 
> 2. Popcorn buds is NOT about light.


lower buds will get bigger with bottom lighting, addling light improves density of the nugs
although the major factor with lower cola development is genetics 
unless the plant makes large colas lower down anyway adding lots of extra light will not suddenly make them produce colas


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 2, 2014)

skunkd0c said:


> lower buds will get bigger with bottom lighting, addling light improves density of the nugs
> although the major factor with lower cola development is genetics
> unless the plant makes large colas lower down anyway adding lots of extra light will not suddenly make them produce colas


okay... what about training and topping (auxin manipulation)? 

If i keep pinching the top every time it heals, won't that cause "the rest of the plant" to receive more "energy?" Whereas, if we're growing an apically dominant strain, and just leave it to do its thing, it will naturally focus "more" of its growth "energy" (hormones, nutrients, water, etc.) toward the main top? It would seem as though a reason for this behavior, is that the plant wants to get closer to the light... (cannabis is "sun adapted" rather than "shade adapted") because the more light it can get, the better it can develop. If it can't reach enough light, it will stretch like crazy and develop weak fruit. Why would the lower shaded branches NOT be subject to such results, when the rest of the plant is? Those unlighted lower branches (which cannot "grow toward light" if there's not enough room) will either stretch and find light (and subsequently fully develop), or do nothing (because not enough light) and not develop robustly. From what i see in my own plants, the stuff that touches light develops relatively quickly, while the stuff "stuck" under the canopy seems to stall. It doesn't cease growth completely (because it's still "sucking" resources), it just doesn't keep up with the stuff in direct light. It's slower and smaller, and i expect it will never "catch up," unless i manipulate the canopy to allow more direct light to reach those shaded lower parts. How is that not about light? All parts which receive "as much light as the rest of the plant," seem to grow "as much as the rest of the plant." Those too far below canopy, which do not see as much light, do not grow as well as the rest of the plant. More light = more grow. Less light = less grow. Anyone getting "popcorn" on their direct light tops, but "colas" on their shaded bottoms? I doubt it. I've never seen a bottom-heavy plant that wasn't bottom-lit. In fact, i can't recall EVER seeing a bottom-heavy plant (or anyone "bottom lighting" for that matter). Most people's lights are above their plants, and their plants are best developed where they touch the most light. In my case, the leaves which get the most light (the ones on the plant directly in the center) are Twice as big as everything else up top (and wide and thick and dark, nearly opaque; they block quite a bit of light), and everything "below" is comparatively small; probably half as big as the stuff on the edges, which still isn't as big as my hand. I don't understand how this is even a debate. Even as a "noob," i can see what's happening. The stuff touching the light grows the best, and whatever isn't getting enough light, falls further and further behind as time progresses. If you KNOW that a branch will not be able to reach light and fully develop... why not remove it? Why not nip it before the plant ever spends the energy to grow that branch or leaf? Why not distribute those resources stored in those "storage bank leaves," to the leaves in the light, which will be kept for the duration? Why do we need to grow leaves just so the plant can waste energy trying to produce inferior fruit, and then cannibalize itself? Maybe if we just build our soil correctly, we can skip the whole "storing resources to be cannibalized" part, thus saving energy, and being more efficient? 

Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best. It's possible for the lowest branch to assume apical dominance, if it's the part of the plant receiving the best light. 

Either way... "don't over-prune" is probably great advice... but insisting that "lollipopping is bad," is probably not. Lollipopping Too Much, is bad... you probably don't need to hack off the bottom two thirds of your plant... but not everyone has an 8x8 room to dedicate to one plant, and lamps that penetrate 2 ft of soil from 10 ft away. Prune what won't produce; strategically position the rest. Unless of course that's just too much hassle, in which case you should probably cut off anything that isn't worth Your time, and not worry about whether people on forums get upset about your pruning techniques.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 2, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best.


No they don't. It's obvious you have never grown outdoors.



> It's possible for the lowest branch to assume apical dominance, if it's the part of the plant receiving the best light.


No it's not, as I articulated in quite a few of the (never ending) defoliation threads. Again, that statement reflects the mindset of most of the members at RIU - you don't understand plant processes, hormonal influences and apical dominance. (And that goes for you too skunkdOc). 

Get away from this retarded site and get into one that presents solid botanical knowledge.

UB


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 2, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> No they don't. It's obvious you have never grown outdoors.


So are you saying cannabis is not a sun-adapted species, and that it does not grow toward light? 

It most certainly IS a sun-adapted species (look it up), and DOES grow toward light; i have seen it; it is well-documented. I can move my lamp to different positions, and my plants will reposition themselves accordingly, sometimes within a very short time (like a couple hours). 

If you block the top 90% of the plant from light, while focusing quality light on the lowest leaf, that leaf/branch will become dominant. If you put a lamp only on one side of the plant, it will grow asymmetrically, toward that lamp, instead of straight up. It will still go "up," but it will position itself according to the primary light source. If it doesn't have a sufficient light source, it will either not do much at all and die (damping off), or it will stretch like crazy and never properly develop. I have seen what happens underneath a canopy. I'm pretty sure lollipopping is more of an indoor technique; outside you have THE SUN, which can usually reach bottom leaves, because a 6 ft difference is irrelevant in relation to the sun, whereas a 1ft difference is significant in relation to a lamp in a room. 

Anyway... i don't think either of us can gain anything useful from continuing this exchange, so i'll just stop there.


----------



## skunkd0c (Oct 2, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> okay... what about training and topping (auxin manipulation)?
> 
> If i keep pinching the top every time it heals, won't that cause "the rest of the plant" to receive more "energy?" Whereas, if we're growing an apically dominant strain, and just leave it to do its thing, it will naturally focus "more" of its growth "energy" (hormones, nutrients, water, etc.) toward the main top? It would seem as though a reason for this behavior, is that the plant wants to get closer to the light... (cannabis is "sun adapted" rather than "shade adapted") because the more light it can get, the better it can develop. If it can't reach enough light, it will stretch like crazy and develop weak fruit. Why would the lower shaded branches NOT be subject to such results, when the rest of the plant is? Those unlighted lower branches (which cannot "grow toward light" if there's not enough room) will either stretch and find light (and subsequently fully develop), or do nothing (because not enough light) and not develop robustly. From what i see in my own plants, the stuff that touches light develops relatively quickly, while the stuff "stuck" under the canopy seems to stall. It doesn't cease growth completely (because it's still "sucking" resources), it just doesn't keep up with the stuff in direct light. It's slower and smaller, and i expect it will never "catch up," unless i manipulate the canopy to allow more direct light to reach those shaded lower parts. How is that not about light? All parts which receive "as much light as the rest of the plant," seem to grow "as much as the rest of the plant." Those too far below canopy, which do not see as much light, do not grow as well as the rest of the plant. More light = more grow. Less light = less grow. Anyone getting "popcorn" on their direct light tops, but "colas" on their shaded bottoms? I doubt it. I've never seen a bottom-heavy plant that wasn't bottom-lit. In fact, i can't recall EVER seeing a bottom-heavy plant (or anyone "bottom lighting" for that matter). Most people's lights are above their plants, and their plants are best developed where they touch the most light. In my case, the leaves which get the most light (the ones on the plant directly in the center) are Twice as big as everything else up top (and wide and thick and dark, nearly opaque; they block quite a bit of light), and everything "below" is comparatively small; probably half as big as the stuff on the edges, which still isn't as big as my hand. I don't understand how this is even a debate. Even as a "noob," i can see what's happening. The stuff touching the light grows the best, and whatever isn't getting enough light, falls further and further behind as time progresses. If you KNOW that a branch will not be able to reach light and fully develop... why not remove it? Why not nip it before the plant ever spends the energy to grow that branch or leaf? Why not distribute those resources stored in those "storage bank leaves," to the leaves in the light, which will be kept for the duration? Why do we need to grow leaves just so the plant can waste energy trying to produce inferior fruit, and then cannibalize itself? Maybe if we just build our soil correctly, we can skip the whole "storing resources to be cannibalized" part, thus saving energy, and being more efficient?
> 
> ...


what is this all about ^^ ? 
are you thinking about writing a grow book lol


----------



## Dankfactory (Oct 2, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Bullshit....


So simple, yet such a hilarious post.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 3, 2014)

Wow, seems uncle ben still hasnt figured out that you get better, bigger, more fully developed buds when theres light getting to them. Youd think a guy with a head of knowledge like he has would be able to look at a cannabis plant and see how poorly the bottom buds turn out on some genetics and concede. If you grow big canopies indoor youll see light green underdeveloped scraglies where theres a lack of light. Same thing with pruning a tomato plant. Its common sense. Proper pruning produces better quality more uniform fruits. Fact. Weed isnt some wonder plant that is special.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 3, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Gawd, another defoliation thread?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hahahaaa, UB....the only man i know that would call all professional tomato producers "stupid".


----------



## butterbudface (Oct 3, 2014)

This is as a result of *auxin* accumulating on the side of the plant away from the light, causing extra growth in this region and so causing the plant to bend towards the light. Roots are not sensitive to light but grow downwards in response to the stimulus of gravity.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 3, 2014)

Okay they plant will lean towards the light at first then the fan leaves will begin to grow bigger wasting energy so it can get more light and use it. I will say this bigger buds is not always better buds. I have grown them big and small. I grew outdoors which was so much easier. I think UB is just trying to get you all to try and let a plant grow itself without removing leaves for flowering. I can say I was happy both ways. leaving them on and removing 30% of the lower ones. I am no an expert I just let them grow and test them. I am still learning what my C99 strain can do. I know it can be trained and grow into a bush then not stretch as much. or i can let it grow up and chop the top 10-18 inches off every 2 weeks which doesnt stop it from growing up huge. These plants have all by then selves used all the energy in the bottom 15% of the plants so far. It is eating more everyday. I think there can be great info and comparison if we all be more constructive and helpful. UB is straight to the point here and not so on the other site. I know there we dont have drama because we dont spread bad information. I am not sure lollipop is bad. even though it does go against the rules. But hey 95% of us is going against the rules to grow this plant so sometimes thinking outside the box is good.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 3, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> So are you saying cannabis is not a sun-adapted species, and that it does not grow toward light?


Cannabis is actually a tuber. Best buds can be found underground. 

(sheesh, where do you guys come from.... hills of Vermont?)

Now, read this reallllllll slow --> I..... was...... responding...... to....... your....... statement............ here --> *and the parts which touch light, develop the best.*


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 3, 2014)

butterbudface said:


> This is as a result of *auxin* accumulating on the side of the plant away from the light, causing extra growth in this region and so causing the plant to bend towards the light. Roots are not sensitive to light but grow downwards in response to the stimulus of gravity.


Phototropism, gravitropism


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 3, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Wow, seems uncle ben still hasnt figured out that you get better, bigger, more fully developed buds when theres light getting to them. Youd think a guy with a head of knowledge like he has would be able to look at a cannabis plant and see how poorly the bottom buds turn out on some genetics and concede.


Has nothing to do with light, shit-fer-brains. See the other defoliation threads and stop making a fool of yourself. You too have never grown outdoors and don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Doer (Oct 3, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> Okay they plant will lean towards the light at first then the fan leaves will begin to grow bigger wasting energy so it can get more light and use it. I will say this bigger buds is not always better buds. I have grown them big and small. I grew outdoors which was so much easier. I think UB is just trying to get you all to try and let a plant grow itself without removing leaves for flowering. I can say I was happy both ways. leaving them on and removing 30% of the lower ones. I am no an expert I just let them grow and test them. I am still learning what my C99 strain can do. I know it can be trained and grow into a bush then not stretch as much. or i can let it grow up and chop the top 10-18 inches off every 2 weeks which doesnt stop it from growing up huge. These plants have all by then selves used all the energy in the bottom 15% of the plants so far. It is eating more everyday. I think there can be great info and comparison if we all be more constructive and helpful. UB is straight to the point here and not so on the other site. I know there we dont have drama because we dont spread bad information. I am not sure lollipop is bad. even though it does go against the rules. But hey 95% of us is going against the rules to grow this plant so sometimes thinking outside the box is good.


"Wasting energy" is a ganja myth. There is nothing about that in Nature or Botany to even have you propose such a thing.

She put that fan leaf there in response to the environment and when she is done she will pull the sugars and drop that leave as a crispy critter.


----------



## Doer (Oct 3, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Wow, seems uncle ben still hasnt figured out that you get better, bigger, more fully developed buds when theres light getting to them. Youd think a guy with a head of knowledge like he has would be able to look at a cannabis plant and see how poorly the bottom buds turn out on some genetics and concede. If you grow big canopies indoor youll see light green underdeveloped scraglies where theres a lack of light. Same thing with pruning a tomato plant. Its common sense. Proper pruning produces better quality more uniform fruits. Fact. Weed isnt some wonder plant that is special.


You have not figured out anything. You assume the smaller bottom flowers are from a "lack of light." No. You have no evidence of that. You are just arguing Ganja Myths. You have not done years of experiments and published articles about the results, have you? Yet, UB, has.

We are not growing fruit here. Tomato is a fruit with giant water blubs as the product. This is a Bract Flowering plant akin to Hops.

And have you ever topped a plant and let more light to the bottom? I have. It is meaningless. The buds will continue to mature along the timeline, but they don't get suddenly bigger and better for the extra light.

The plant makes THC top to bottom, just more at the top, is all. If you add side lights or what ever, you are just adding total watt. The more watts the better.

Total watts is yield, feeding correctly is yield. Heavy trimming lowers yield since you take the leaves that are hard at work.

Trimming tomato lowers yield. It makes uniform, larger fruit, but you reduce the total yield weight. If you are growing for tomato sauce, it is completely different. Then you are after total weight.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 3, 2014)

skunkd0c said:


> what is this all about ^^ ?
> are you thinking about writing a grow book lol


Nope, i'm just verbose like that (some people appreciate the attempt at precision, others consider it an unappealing character flaw). It would be wildly presumptuous (and quite premature) of me to assume i know enough about growing cannabis to write a book. I obviously am not an expert yet, but you might be surprised how far a logical mind making and analyzing observations, can take you. I doubt i'll live long enough to become the cannabis guru i'd like to be, but if that ends up happening, i will probably write about it. Don't stay tuned, i've got at least a decade to grow, before any such thing could happen. Or maybe i'm a fast learner?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 3, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Has nothing to do with light, shit-fer-brains. See the other defoliation threads and stop making a fool of yourself. You too have never grown outdoors and don't know what you're talking about.


Im pretty sure this thread started with an indoor growing question. I know how your unable to let any thread that involves defoliation pass by and not try and take it over and make it all about how smart UB is but your wrong again. Its like clockwork and your like a moth to the flame you fool. 
Every one of us experienced indoor growers knows that if your indoor plants are too densely packed together or jammed into a corner that theyll end up pale, yellowish, undeveloped, fluffy, unripe, tiny, and just junk where the light doesnt penetrate. So us pro indoor growers (weed not oranges) take steps to prevent unsavory bud production and increase the production of pristine ripe large buds....its called lolly popping. 
Lolly popping is done because in an indoor grow there is no sun to slowly move over the plant, changing light angles and making sure that all sides of the plant get some splash of light energy to the leaves that power your bud production. 
So ya, once again UB youve flapped your mouth mouth in the wrong thread. Maybe you should try indoor growing for a while and you might see that your wrong and that you are indeed the fool. Thats what happens when your old and think you know it all...you say stupid things people laugh at you


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 3, 2014)

Doer said:


> You have not figured out anything. You assume the smaller bottom flowers are from a "lack of light." No. You have no evidence of that. You are just arguing Ganja Myths. You have not done years of experiments and published articles about the results, have you? Yet, UB, has.
> 
> We are not growing fruit here. Tomato is a fruit with giant water blubs as the product. This is a Bract Flowering plant akin to Hops.
> 
> ...


I used to be all about the highest yield which is fun. Then i realized that with untrimmed plants comes a lot of unsavory buds. So now i try and make a more uniform product and lolly popping is a great tool to make that happen. Its what the dispensaries want, you want to smoke all your plant and get a huge bag then go ahead. Dont trim it. When your actually the tomato farmer selling fruit to market instead of for tomato sauce like hienz, you manipulate your plants, period. 
Three runs back i had some ak plants that tiny buds except for the top colas. Tiny all the way down. Lolly popped all the bud was large enough to become useful for more than just edibles or extractions. Which is a good thing because that ak is an amazing sativa high that gives you energy for hours on end and i almost got rid of it due to small bud size.


----------



## a mongo frog (Oct 3, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Im pretty sure this thread started with an indoor growing question. I know how your unable to let any thread that involves defoliation pass by and not try and take it over and make it all about how smart UB is but your wrong again. Its like clockwork and your like a moth to the flame you fool.
> Every one of us experienced indoor growers knows that if your indoor plants are too densely packed together or jammed into a corner that theyll end up pale, yellowish, undeveloped, fluffy, unripe, tiny, and just junk where the light doesnt penetrate. So us pro indoor growers (weed not oranges) take steps to prevent unsavory bud production and increase the production of pristine ripe large buds....its called lolly popping.
> Lolly popping is done because in an indoor grow there is no sun to slowly move over the plant, changing light angles and making sure that all sides of the plant get some splash of light energy to the leaves that power your bud production.
> So ya, once again UB youve flapped your mouth mouth in the wrong thread. Maybe you should try indoor growing for a while and you might see that your wrong and that you are indeed the fool. Thats what happens when your old and think you know it all...you say stupid things people laugh at you


is why we lollipop. this post and the other post. nicely put Ninja.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 3, 2014)

Doer said:


> "Wasting energy" is a ganja myth. There is nothing about that in Nature or Botany to even have you propose such a thing.
> 
> She put that fan leaf there in response to the environment and when she is done she will pull the sugars and drop that leave as a crispy critter.


Its all about how they use the energy of the light in photosynthesis ect. When it has to find the light the fan leaves will become bigger and it will not be using those resources in producing new growth. That is what i was saying. When i see a plant with giant ass fan leaves it tells me low light levels in the required 420-460/620-660 range. I was gonna remove some leaves on the bottom of my giant ass 6'6 inch plants but UB convinced me not too. I am loosing leaves cause of a few issues earlier on. I now have it trucking along but the damage was done. I totally understand how to grow plants. I am trying a new way to learn and AIS is what i will switch back too.That is hydro Soil. I will use my learning experience and improve. We are all learning here. It is all about doing what works for you. For everyone who said it doesn't work cause I read a book means nothing to me. Now trying new things and finding how to trick these weeds into doing something diff means you learned them and if it works for you who cares what anyone thinks. If you say no way doesn't work, I say have you tried it yet when you learned how to grow a decent plant? This reminds me of when they said no way can we fly. yep same BS. I agree there are ways that are known to work but who says that is the only way. Vertical scrogs is the way i am heading with AIS. Then i should be able to keep all leaves intact. doing horizontal indoors and keeping them is tuff. I say if you can congrats you are farther along than I am. Please dont take this as me being an ass but as I am just voicing how i feel.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 3, 2014)

Ya, you cant really keep all your leaves from falling off in dirt lol i have a girl who comes out every week to remove falling leaves. It just happens. Hydro systems that are running well should hold leaves much better but they just fall. Its the life cycle of the plant and hydro is in no way what nature intended....its better than nature, so there are obvious benifits. Good luck man.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> When i see a plant with giant ass fan leaves it tells me low light levels in the required 420-460/620-660 range.


Gotta disagree here. In my case, the one receiving the most direct and intense light, has the biggest leaves; easily twice as big as the rest. The Cree cxa3070 does not lack light in the ranges you mentioned; in fact, it focuses/specializes in those very ranges. It spikes in both, but is red-heavy, with still plenty of blue, and minimal green. The spectral curve graph of that particular cob has been posted here and elsewhere, many times. 

I have... a few, beneath a pair of 3070s, and the 3070s are adjacent to each other, which creates a super-intense PAR overlap region in the center, where the center plant has enormous primary (and secondary) fan leaves, while every other one's fan leaves are literally half the size or less. I actually bleached them a bit early on, because those crees are pretty intense, and i had them a little too close (but the node spacing was awesome, pre-stretch, and before i had to back the lamp away to let them recover...). Those biggest leaves are also the darkest and most opaque. My hypothesis is that the plant "senses" that there is SO MUCH useful light, that it "knows" it doesn't need to go "up," but needs to grow the leaves as big/wide as possible, to harness all of it, because it Doesn't have to "reach" for anything; everything it needs is right there in its face; it merely has to grow straight out and up, and more leaf surface = more photosynthesis ("senses" may be the wrong term; it's likely more accurate to say that it simply grows the most where it touches the most and best light... due to an abundance, which accelerates growth... and since it's getting plenty of intensity, it favors horizontal growth instead of vertical growth). The others stretch more and exhibit "reaching" characteristics, whereas the one in the center simply "gets huge." It's also got the thickest stalk (6wks above ground, 2wks into bloom, stalk thick like a thumb, trying to grow roots out of its neck, despite being buried deeper than the others at transplant). Prior to flip, it was the shortest, bushiest, widest, and was the first to pop. It stretched a bit and caught up, then vertically surpassed all but one, and i had to tie it down to prevent it from "stealing" light from the others. It was hogging the PAR overlap cone and depriving the others of direct light. On each side of that one, one is stretching like crazy, while the other seems to have stretched very little, if at all (which means it's now receiving mostly obstructed "filtered" light; i think i'm stuck with this issue, because i don't want to do anything drastic and stress them at this point), but has the prettiest leaves (this is the one that has been the prettiest from the beginning, which i suspected might turn out male, but didn't). However: the cxa3070 "lacks green" (not completely, but relatively speaking), so when blue and red are filtered by upper leaves, there isn't much green left to reflect or penetrate opaque leaves. Ideally, i'd should use 2 more of these same cobs, but it's not necessary. I just have more canopy than PAR cone, partly due to configuration. Everything in that PAR overlap zone is thriving; everything else is "just okay." I don't have dying leaves everywhere; just a few, at the bottom, because the canopy has already claimed the majority of useful light. My lowest massive fan leaves will probably go soon... because they don't get much light anymore, due to the massive fan leaves above them, as well as all the other flower sites occupying all available PAR cone space. 

TL;DR: 

cxa3070 delivers primarily red and blue, and of mine, the one directly beneath the lamp, receiving the highest amount of intensity, has enormous leaves, while the others are at best half the size, despite the fact they clearly receive less of the exact same spectrum and intensity. Everything in my "hot spot" gets huge and dark; everything else is smaller, brighter, thinner, less opaque. Top leaves tend to be darkest and most opaque (after sufficiently maturing, of course). 

If the "not enough red/blue" assertion were correct, the lowest leaves, and those on the edges, would be the biggest; not the ones directly in the center of the highest intensity zone.


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> "Wasting energy" is a ganja myth. There is nothing about that in Nature or Botany to even have you propose such a thing.


I don't think its a myth, from first hand experience. I grow Outdoors only getting light from fairly high in the sky I need to get my plants as tall as possible quickly. And there is no point for me to keep the lower 2-3 FEET of branches. Because yes it would be a waste of energy to let all my water and food be used on these weak branches that only produce dime sized buds (because of lack of light). Especially only hauling so much water per week I need it to make sure all the energy (food and water) is being put to the tops.

Not only is it your nutrient energy being put to good use, when it comes time to trimming I would rather have more top colas than bottom popcorn trimming to do. Save on trimming time and back pain.

these 2 pics are what I consider Pretty well trimmed of "pointless" branches and lower growth. After not trimming at all last year I learned that was a huge mistake. I guess you could go overboard but I don't think you could really trim so much that you are effecting yield. You would have to be taking off some main branches and that's no what we're trying to do.

*first pic isn't too good at showing my point, but the back side is all trimmed up too, its right up against those trees so the branches don't get light and don't grow (snip snip)..but the 2nd you can see how if it had lower branches they wouldn't be doing much.

****And that is a bottomless pot, It is Impressive but the roots can go into the ground***


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> I don't think its a myth, from first hand experience. I grow Outdoors only getting light from fairly high in the sky I need to get my plants as tall as possible quickly. And there is no point for me to keep the lower 2-3 FEET of branches. Because yes it would be a waste of energy to let all my water and food be used on these weak branches that only produce dime sized buds (because of lack of light). Especially only hauling so much water per week I need it to make sure all the energy (food and water) is being put to the tops.
> 
> Not only is it your nutrient energy being put to good use, when it comes time to trimming I would rather have more top colas than bottom popcorn trimming to do. Save on trimming time and back pain.
> 
> ...


That 2nd pic... love the "gallon jug for scale." That pot looks a bit small for that plant! But i guess it isn't...


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 4, 2014)

lol I always get that, I forgot to mention it is a bottomless pot, But the hole I dug under it is only the size of the gallon jug so it is pretty impressive for the root systems size. Roots organic in the little hole, but all clay and rocks around that.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 4, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> Gotta disagree here. In my case, the one receiving the most direct and intense light, has the biggest leaves; easily twice as big as the rest. The Cree cxa3070 does not lack light in the ranges you mentioned; in fact, it focuses/specializes in those very ranges. It spikes in both, but is red-heavy, with still plenty of blue, and minimal green. The spectral curve graph of that particular cob has been posted here and elsewhere, many times.
> 
> I have... a few, beneath a pair of 3070s, and the 3070s are adjacent to each other, which creates a super-intense PAR overlap region in the center, where the center plant has enormous primary (and secondary) fan leaves, while every other one's fan leaves are literally half the size or less. I actually bleached them a bit early on, because those crees are pretty intense, and i had them a little too close (but the node spacing was awesome, pre-stretch, and before i had to back the lamp away to let them recover...). Those biggest leaves are also the darkest and most opaque. My hypothesis is that the plant "senses" that there is SO MUCH useful light, that it "knows" it doesn't need to go "up," but needs to grow the leaves as big/wide as possible, to harness all of it, because it Doesn't have to "reach" for anything; everything it needs is right there in its face; it merely has to grow straight out and up, and more leaf surface = more photosynthesis ("senses" may be the wrong term; it's likely more accurate to say that it simply grows the most where it touches the most and best light... due to an abundance, which accelerates growth... and since it's getting plenty of intensity, it favors horizontal growth instead of vertical growth). The others stretch more and exhibit "reaching" characteristics, whereas the one in the center simply "gets huge." It's also got the thickest stalk (6wks above ground, 2wks into bloom, stalk thick like a thumb, trying to grow roots out of its neck, despite being buried deeper than the others at transplant). Prior to flip, it was the shortest, bushiest, widest, and was the first to pop. It stretched a bit and caught up, then vertically surpassed all but one, and i had to tie it down to prevent it from "stealing" light from the others. It was hogging the PAR overlap cone and depriving the others of direct light. On each side of that one, one is stretching like crazy, while the other seems to have stretched very little, if at all (which means it's now receiving mostly obstructed "filtered" light; i think i'm stuck with this issue, because i don't want to do anything drastic and stress them at this point), but has the prettiest leaves (this is the one that has been the prettiest from the beginning, which i suspected might turn out male, but didn't). However: the cxa3070 "lacks green" (not completely, but relatively speaking), so when blue and red are filtered by upper leaves, there isn't much green left to reflect or penetrate opaque leaves. Ideally, i'd should use 2 more of these same cobs, but it's not necessary. I just have more canopy than PAR cone, partly due to configuration. Everything in that PAR overlap zone is thriving; everything else is "just okay." I don't have dying leaves everywhere; just a few, at the bottom, because the canopy has already claimed the majority of useful light. My lowest massive fan leaves will probably go soon... because they don't get much light anymore, due to the massive fan leaves above them, as well as all the other flower sites occupying all available PAR cone space.
> 
> ...


Here is the the pdf on your cxa3070 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http://www.cree.com/~/media/Files/Cree/LED%20Components%20and%20Modules/XLamp/Data%20and%20Binning/ds%20CXA3070.pdf&ei=heMvVO3kKcypyATJnIKwDA&usg=AFQjCNFw0A2ebBEApkcbsbE6D61K0GLfVA&sig2=ouwPLn4OSzExDJ5sWmwA8A&bvm=bv.76802529,d.aWw
you will see it start at putting out enough light at 430nm and 620nm it is falling short of the 420 and 660. I am not here to argue. That is a good light i will admit. I will say if your buds smoke great and you are happy right on. I know mine are some of the best around. I let others smoke there's first. wait an hr then fire mine up. The get so baked its not even funny. I just tell them this is how its supposed to be. Smooth with super expansion, great taste that removes your pain and lasts for 4-6 hrs. Now if your weed can do that then you are doing great as i am. Its about the final quality. How you get there is up to you. Sure we all have allot to learn.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 4, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> I don't think its a myth, from first hand experience. I grow Outdoors only getting light from fairly high in the sky I need to get my plants as tall as possible quickly. And there is no point for me to keep the lower 2-3 FEET of branches. Because yes it would be a waste of energy to let all my water and food be used on these weak branches that only produce dime sized buds (because of lack of light). Especially only hauling so much water per week I need it to make sure all the energy (food and water) is being put to the tops.
> 
> Not only is it your nutrient energy being put to good use, when it comes time to trimming I would rather have more top colas than bottom popcorn trimming to do. Save on trimming time and back pain.
> 
> ...


that is real great for a 1 gallon pot. what would a 5 gallon pot do for you? actually i think that is the biggest plant i have seen in that small of pot. You must water it several times a day. oh you cut the bottom out that is why. okay makes since.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> lol I always get that, I forgot to mention it is a bottomless pot, But the hole I dug under it is only the size of the gallon jug so it is pretty impressive for the root systems size. Roots organic in the little hole, but all clay and rocks around that.


Ah ha! I should have guessed. I accidentally did a micro-version of that same thing (roots out the bottom of solo cups, into large soil container...). Wasn't expecting them to do that, but when i saw what happened i thought "hmm... this could be useful..."


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 4, 2014)

I made note in the original post, I know it looks mind boggling.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> Here is the the pdf on your cxa3070
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http://www.cree.com/~/media/Files/Cree/LED%20Components%20and%20Modules/XLamp/Data%20and%20Binning/ds%20CXA3070.pdf&ei=heMvVO3kKcypyATJnIKwDA&usg=AFQjCNFw0A2ebBEApkcbsbE6D61K0GLfVA&sig2=ouwPLn4OSzExDJ5sWmwA8A&bvm=bv.76802529,d.aWw
> you will see it start at putting out enough light at 430nm and 620nm it is falling short of the 420 and 660. I am not here to argue. That is a good light i will admit. I will say if your buds smoke great and you are happy right on. I know mine are some of the best around. I let others smoke there's first. wait an hr then fire mine up. The get so baked its not even funny. I just tell them this is how its supposed to be. Smooth with super expansion, great taste that removes your pain and lasts for 4-6 hrs. Now if your weed can do that then you are doing great as i am. Its about the final quality. How you get there is up to you. Sure we all have allot to learn.


in the "relative spectral power distribution" section, i'm the Red line (3000k, 80 CRI); i would prefer the Purple line (high CRI), but AFAIK, they're not available. 
In the "typical spatial distribution" section, my largest leaves occur in the zone of highest intensity (directly in the center). I fashioned a curved "U-shaped" screen, in attempt to maximize intensity distribution to stuff outside the center zone (not really working out as well as i hoped, but i bet it would w/ better canopy management). 

So idk, it could be more about spectrum vs. intensity, whereas excess intensity could perhaps "dilute" the red/blue... but that seems counter-intuitive to me. Seems like "more intensity = more/faster/bigger growth (to a point)" but i'm not certain. I tend to think the spectrum doesn't change despite intensity variation, maybe it does? Or maybe "excess" intensity "dilutes" the useful red/blue... but i'm leaning toward intensity variance being the main factor in leaf size variance.


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

The only way to tell is to put a decent number, say 20 plants to the test against 20 control plants of the same strain. The pop-corn is just as "strong" if it is allowed to mature for additional weeks. You don't think it is a Myth?

That does mean anything, sorry to say. 

What you guys are talking about is the look, only. You sacrifice total THC for a good looking product.

But, I extract it all, with my closed loop system. Tomato sauce vs tennis ball sized tomato.


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> Its all about how they use the energy of the light in photosynthesis ect. When it has to find the light the fan leaves will become bigger and it will not be using those resources in producing new growth. That is what i was saying. When i see a plant with giant ass fan leaves it tells me low light levels in the required 420-460/620-660 range. I was gonna remove some leaves on the bottom of my giant ass 6'6 inch plants but UB convinced me not too. I am loosing leaves cause of a few issues earlier on. I now have it trucking along but the damage was done. I totally understand how to grow plants. I am trying a new way to learn and AIS is what i will switch back too.That is hydro Soil. I will use my learning experience and improve. We are all learning here. It is all about doing what works for you. For everyone who said it doesn't work cause I read a book means nothing to me. Now trying new things and finding how to trick these weeds into doing something diff means you learned them and if it works for you who cares what anyone thinks. If you say no way doesn't work, I say have you tried it yet when you learned how to grow a decent plant? This reminds me of when they said no way can we fly. yep same BS. I agree there are ways that are known to work but who says that is the only way. Vertical scrogs is the way i am heading with AIS. Then i should be able to keep all leaves intact. doing horizontal indoors and keeping them is tuff. I say if you can congrats you are farther along than I am. Please dont take this as me being an ass but as I am just voicing how i feel.


That is what the LED guys say. "Once upon a time we could not fly." So they suffer the low light, low yield, low quality, because they are learning how to fly. Good luck. I see this as a hobby, so the commercial infighting is what I call Ganja Myth.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> The only way to tell is to put a decent number, say 20 plants to the test against 20 control plants of the same strain. The pop-corn is just as "strong" if it is allowed to mature for additional weeks. You don't think it is a Myth?
> 
> That does mean anything, sorry to say.
> 
> ...


You know how they say "appearances can be deceiving," and "don't judge a book by its cover..." "what's inside is what matters..."

Some people only want big fat colas; others don't care what it looks like, as long as it smells/tastes/smokes great, and feels how they want to feel. 

I've argued in favor of removing SOME foliage, certainly not all or most; my "gut" tells me i should keep as much of the plant as possible, but there are valid reasons to eliminate some parts of it, just as there are valid reasons to manipulate it toward Your desired results. 

I find it both amusing and frustrating that people get so worked up over what is apparently merely a difference of desired end results... probably because people have a tendency to go around saying any particular thing or way is "better" or "best." Too much absolutism running rampant in the world.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> That is what the LED guys say. "Once upon a time we could not fly." So they suffer the low light, low yield, low quality, because they are learning how to fly. Good luck. I see this as a hobby, so the commercial infighting is what I call Ganja Myth.


Heat, power cost/availability, lifespan of lamp, etc. 

Sometimes, certain factors are more important than having the most powerful lamp money can buy.


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

But, since LED grows lousy pot, it is inexcusable, except as an LED hobby.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> But, since LED grows lousy pot, it is inexcusable, except as an LED hobby.


If the best i can do is B+, which means i'm satisfied and never have to buy or deal with dealers, that's neither "lousy" nor "inexcusable." 

Quality over quantity; function over form. The right tool for the right job. LED is simply "best" in some circumstances, despite the notion that anything less than the biggest and most perfect is "inexcusable." You should have a look at the Good LED grows.


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

I have never seen a "good" LED grow. And I don't like B grade pot.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> I have never seen a "good" LED grow. And I don't like B grade pot.


I have, and "pretty good" is better than "not at all." Especially if i know exactly what went into the entire process, and can feel at ease with knowing no one did anything "weird" to it. 

Life in an ivory tower must be... interesting?


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> You don't think it is a Myth?
> 
> That does mean anything, sorry to say.
> .


I dunno man, I tested it in very similar conditions, and it seemed to mean something. "that doesn't mean anything" is something a real D-bag who thinks he's a damn scientist would say. Nobody is sacrificing THC by trimming lower buds. I think You don't understand what Im trying to say. My argument is there, and all you have to say is "the popcorn buds are just as potent"

It worked really good for me and I recommend it.


----------



## CaretakerDad (Oct 4, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> You know how they say "appearances can be deceiving," and "don't judge a book by its cover..." "what's inside is what matters..."
> 
> Some people only want big fat colas; others don't care what it looks like, as long as it smells/tastes/smokes great, and feels how they want to feel.
> 
> ...


It's not what you do to your plants, please experiment all you want. Just do it in a controlled setting and use a proper scientific method, the minimum would be 3 subject and 3 control plants run at least 3 times. It is telling others, specifically Newbs, that this is a good or proper botanical practice that causes most of the experienced growers on this forum to pounce. Also what you are describing is pruning which many of you interchange freely with defoliating. This fundamental disconnect is why it is difficult and frustrating for those of us that are often referred to dismissively as "booksmart" to have rational discussions. Carefully worded and often citation or illustration included responses based on experience and science are often dismissed with "I feel" or "I've seen it done" or "it's obvious" followed by some internet hype.


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

It only means something if you take insult from it.

It doesn't mean anything to further the quest for an answer. It is not experiment, only your conjecture. Don't get shook up. It is why we invented science, to reduce conjecture and Superstition.


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> I dunno man, I tested it in very similar conditions, and it seemed to mean something. "that doesn't mean anything" is something a real D-bag who thinks he's a damn scientist would say. Nobody is sacrificing THC by trimming lower buds. I think You don't understand what Im trying to say. My argument is there, and all you have to say is "the popcorn buds are just as potent"
> 
> It worked really good for me and I recommend it.



Popcorn buds start later than the colas, ever think of that? If allowed to mature they are just a potent. So to trim will lose total THC weight from that plant in exchange for looks.

I'm smoking some popcorn Sour Diesel right now from my clinic. It was cheaper than the colas but it was the strongest they had that day for sativa. 25.2%

If you think I sound like a dirt bag you should read my stuff in a soft gentle voice, like I write with. Maybe the dirt is all in your head?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Every one of us experienced indoor growers knows that if your indoor plants are too densely packed together or jammed into a corner that theyll end up pale, yellowish, undeveloped, fluffy, unripe, tiny, and just junk where the light doesnt penetrate.


Bullshit......

I pack my plants and for the most part they retain most of their lower leaves until harvest. 

This is gonna sound arrogant but you're just not in my league when it comes to horticulture knowledge or experience.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> Popcorn buds start later than the colas, ever think of that? If allowed to mature they are just a potent. So to trim will lose total THC weight from that plant in exchange for looks.
> 
> I'm smoking some popcorn Sour Diesel right now from my clinic. It was cheaper than the colas but it was the strongest they had that day for sativa. 25.2%
> 
> If you think I sound like a dirt bag you should read my stuff in a soft gentle voice, like I write with. Maybe the dirt is all in your head?


A few concepts I conveyed in previous posts. The popcorn buds located at the bottom of the plant (and the last to flower) will not receive the attention (carbos, resources, hormones, etc.) of the mother plant like the upper part which starts flowering first. Due to apical dominance the top will receive the goodies over the lower part of the plant. Same action as the plant drops leaves - it's never the top being the first to go, it's the bottom. That is just what plants do, not only cannabis.

Regarding potency, Mel Franks reported scientifically derived data that reflects THC content is often higher at the lower part of the plant than at the upper reaches of the main colas.

UB


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/


Great thread and closed by the clowns as usual. No one and I say NO ONE, that I have seen, can produce indoor colas like that.
And his point is he didn't have to do a bunch of Ganja Myths to get there.

And Hazy, I like you. Don't be hatin' so, how about?


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> I have, and "pretty good" is better than "not at all." Especially if i know exactly what went into the entire process, and can feel at ease with knowing no one did anything "weird" to it.
> 
> Life in an ivory tower must be... interesting?


Yeah, you can tell us all about the LED ivroy tower....In another thread.

Little parting shots like that seem pretty punk, to me.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

CaretakerDad said:


> It's not what you do to your plants, please experiment all you want. Just do it in a controlled setting and use a proper scientific method, the minimum would be 3 subject and 3 control plants run at least 3 times. It is telling others, specifically Newbs, that this is a good or proper botanical practice that causes most of the experienced growers on this forum to pounce. Also what you are describing is pruning which many of you interchange freely with defoliating. This fundamental disconnect is why it is difficult and frustrating for those of us that are often referred to dismissively as "booksmart" to have rational discussions. Carefully worded and often citation or illustration included responses based on experience and science are often dismissed with "I feel" or "I've seen it done" or "it's obvious" followed by some internet hype.


Man, does that need repeating! You nailed it.


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> Popcorn buds start later than the colas, ever think of that? If allowed to mature they are just a potent. So to trim will lose total THC weight from that plant in exchange for looks.
> 
> I'm smoking some popcorn Sour Diesel right now from my clinic. It was cheaper than the colas but it was the strongest they had that day for sativa. 25.2%
> 
> If you think I sound like a dirt bag you should read my stuff in a soft gentle voice, like I write with. Maybe the dirt is all in your head?


See we're talking about 2 different things anyways, outdoors especially guerilla like mine you cant really chop the tops and wait for the bottoms to mature, usually where I am its a race against frost. It truly is a waste of resources is all im saying. Not to mention indoors you want to get as much bud in the limited space you have (so keep the popcorn). As long as you understand what im saying its all good. Certain circumstances call for different methods.


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

CaretakerDad said:


> It's not what you do to your plants, please experiment all you want. Just do it in a controlled setting and use a proper scientific method, the minimum would be 3 subject and 3 control plants run at least 3 times. It is telling others, specifically Newbs, that this is a good or proper botanical practice that causes most of the experienced growers on this forum to pounce. Also what you are describing is pruning which many of you interchange freely with defoliating. This fundamental disconnect is why it is difficult and frustrating for those of us that are often referred to dismissively as "booksmart" to have rational discussions. Carefully worded and often citation or illustration included responses based on experience and science are often dismissed with "I feel" or "I've seen it done" or "it's obvious" followed by some internet hype.


I agree: linguistic incompatibility is a problem i often cite, in numerous areas, not just here. 

At some point, i realized that those vehemently opposing "defoliation" were arguing against a definition i wasn't using (which is probably the definition they were given by those promoting it). 

If we define "defoliation" as "removing most of the fan leaves to increase yield," i can't agree with it. Leaves are clearly necessary. I want as many leaves receiving as much useful light as possible. 

But if we define "defoliation" literally, as "de-foliate" or "the removal of any number of leaves," then that definition doesn't necessarily mean "strip the plant." 

Too many different (often conflicting) definitions for the same words... contributes to unnecessary disagreements, stifles communication, inevitably produces arbitrary conflict. 

Kinda like how people throw around the word "theoretically," when really "hypothetically" or even "speculatively" would be more appropriate. When people say "it's just theories," i cringe. Theory is "the best idea we can come up with, based on the best available info." Hypothesis is "educated guess." Speculation is even less strict. 

I have quite a few leaves which aren't getting much useful light, but i didn't remove them because they seem healthy enough and they're not obstructing anything, or contributing to any discernible problems. If i see a problematic situation, i'd rather "reduce potential yield" by a small amount, instead of compromise the whole crop. That factors into my "cut off what isn't helping" approach. Sure, a leaf might be minimally photosynthesizing... but if it's also crammed up against other things, trapping moisture and encouraging mold and/or pests, that's no good, and isn't worth the minimal benefit of keeping it for stored resources. Stored resources become irrelevant if the whole plant gets compromised. Then the whole thing is waste, not just a few leaves. 

Pruning and canopy management: yes. 
Stripping the plant: No. 

If i have a huge fan leaf hogging all the good light, i'd rather remove it and allow all that good light to reach multiple other leaves. Seems like you'd have a better overall photosynthetic efficiency that way (more leaves harnessing energy should be better than less leaves harnessing energy, right? So if you can cut 2 to help 10, that seems like a good thing...)


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 4, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Bullshit......
> 
> I pack my plants and for the most part they retain most of their lower leaves until harvest.
> 
> ...


Well maybe your not packing them close enough to understand what indoor growing is all about. What im trying to explain to you which you clearly dont understand, is that when you have a canopy that is so dense that light doesnt penetrate, the bottom is crap....like think scrog. Im sure youve probably never done it so you probably dont have the foggiest about what happens under the screen. Well let me explain for you. It SUCKS. I dont even want to rewrite that its undeveloped, fluffy, and so on again but i have too for you....again. 

The argument here is not if the plant will retain its leaves, it will, those scragly crap, lime yellow leaves hold on forever unfortunately. The argument is do you want them on there. Do you want the trimmers putting that crap in the bag thats on its way to the market? The answer is no. I dont want anyone pulling that center of the plant, lower crap bud off and stuffing their pipe full of that crap bud that should have been trimmed off, as a first impression of my product. 

You grow outside, under green houses, under a natural light mover (the sun). You dont deal with the same shit indoor growers deal with, you dont have a clue about indoor growing besides being able to recite plant growth processes and soil compositions, and light wavelengths mabey. If you did youd know that cutting branches off, and cleaning out centers, or trimming off side growth in SOG, or removing under the screen in a SCROG, are all steps professional growers take to ensure the best product is delivered. 

So scream "bullshit!", all youd like, call me a fool, sit and scream at your computer all youd like, but your still wrong. Ill hack wrecklessly with my fiskars and trim out my garbage buds and lower energy wasting branches to improve my final product because thats what has proven to work time, and time again, while you continue to grow outdoor, with drip systems, under glass or plastic, under the sun, and relentlessly interject into indoor growing threads spreading lies and spewing shit from your word hole when infact its you, that dont have a clue.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> If i have a huge fan leaf hogging all the good light, i'd rather remove it and allow all that good light to reach multiple other leaves. Seems like you'd have a better overall photosynthetic efficiency that way (more leaves harnessing energy should be better than less leaves harnessing energy, right? So if you can cut 2 to help 10, that seems like a good thing...)


You do what you want but if you'll LOOK at photos #3 & 4 in this thread which clearly reveals leaves over leaves, branches extending into other plants' branches.... https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/ ....you'll see that your theories, your feelings, are totally invalid as are most. We're talkin' the real world here. 

Uncle Ben


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Well maybe your not packing them close enough to understand what indoor growing is all about.* What im trying to explain to you which you clearly dont understand*, is that when you have a canopy that is so dense that light doesnt penetrate, the bottom is crap....


Bullshit.....

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.  Here, I'll repeat my very recent response since reading comprehension is not your strongest suit. Look at da pretty peetures and see for yourself, uhhhhhhhh, indoor gardens, just in case you didn't get it the first time.

You do what you want but if you'll LOOK at photos #3 & 4 in this thread which clearly reveals leaves over leaves, branches extending into other plants' branches.... https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/ ....you'll see that your theories, your feelings, are totally invalid as are most. We're talkin' the real world here.

Just in case it's not quite clear, the plants shown were not in front. I pulled out plants to show them off, to take pictures. They were crammed in amongst their sisters.

Uncle Ben


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 4, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Bullshit.....


Hahahaaa, i love your debate style...........all im picturing is an old guy with a bummed leg shouting bullshit at a computer and throwing his cane while looking up threads on SCROG to see if im right. 
Cummon you old fart, just admit that under the screen you have to trim it out.......or your bag looks like some land race jungle bud. 
Theres no 100% right answer all the time Ben. You cant just say never, or always. SOG guys trim crap off all the time too. Are you going to call them fools too?


Bullshit.....lmfao


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Well maybe your not packing them close enough to understand what indoor growing is all about. What im trying to explain to you which you clearly dont understand, is that when you have a canopy that is so dense that light doesnt penetrate, the bottom is crap....like think scrog. Im sure youve probably never done it so you probably dont have the foggiest about what happens under the screen. Well let me explain for you. It SUCKS. I dont even want to rewrite that its undeveloped, fluffy, and so on again but i have too for you....again.
> 
> The argument here is not if the plant will retain its leaves, it will, those scragly crap, lime yellow leaves hold on forever unfortunately. The argument is do you want them on there. Do you want the trimmers putting that crap in the bag thats on its way to the market? The answer is no. I dont want anyone pulling that center of the plant, lower crap bud off and stuffing their pipe full of that crap bud that should have been trimmed off, as a first impression of my product.
> 
> ...


You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Ben has done plenty., He started indoors. You just want to fight.


You are making so many assumptions it is actually funny in a scientific sense.

A1- Light does not penetrate the leaves to bottom.

you can see the bottom can't you? It is reflecting light from those bottom leaves

A2 - Leaves are opaque to PAR frequencies

take a PAR meter and put it under there. leaves are somewhat transparent to PAR

A3 - the top blocks the bottom

besides A1 and A2, there is still the fact that is why those leaves are BIGGER, they have more surface for less PAR.

A4 - Light is not a whole plant resource

The plant takes light where it can and produces what it can. Add side lights, don't take leaves

A5 - the popcorn is worthless since it doesn't get light

see A4

A6 - the yield you lose from popcorn is more than made up in cola mass

Anyone with a scale can see that is not true.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> those are all pics of top nugs...


No they're not. Nice try, spin. 

In fact, the nuggets at the bottom of the plants in photos #3 & 4 are wider than the main cola at the top! Also, if you scroll down page one you'll see typical "popcorn" nugs. They add up, at least for me they do. For you MJ wimps that have trouble retaining your lower leaves, don't try this at home.


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 4, 2014)

You cant post the pic here? Im not sure im looking at the right ones...all the pics I see on that page look like they are tops.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> You simple don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Ben has done plenty., He started indoors. You just want to fight.
> 
> ...


Fighting is not my goal. What id like to show is that you cant sit behind a computer and say things like never trim off branches, or never take off a fan leaf. Its just wrong. I stripped 80% of the fan leaves off a friends dwc because of mite damage and they all grew back throughout veg and the plant was great. DEFOLIATION at its finest. Blanket statements will always be disputed because their almost always disputable. 

Ben your a smart guy, you should know that  and doer, i deal with clients who dont appreciate bottom lime green yellow fluffy buds. You and ben may be right about THC content but the difference in the price a Q fetches makes that little bit of extra work with the scissors worth the effort


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Fighting is not my goal.


Bullshit......


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Fighting is not my goal. What id like to show is that you cant sit behind a computer and say things like never trim off branches, or never take off a fan leaf. Its just wrong. I stripped 80% of the fan leaves off a friends dwc because of mite damage and they all grew back throughout veg and the plant was great. DEFOLIATION at its finest. Blanket statements will always be disputed because their almost always disputable.
> 
> Ben your a smart guy, you should know that  and doer, i deal with clients who dont appreciate bottom lime green yellow fluffy buds. You and ben may be right about THC content but the difference in the price a Q fetches makes that little bit of extra work with the scissors worth the effort


OK, I'm sorry. You really are blind. But the old fart can help......but first we have to test you to make sure how severe your vision problems are.
http://www.maxiaids.com/products/1624/Kindergarten-Eye-Chart.html


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> You simple don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Ben has done plenty., He started indoors. You just want to fight.
> 
> ...


EXCELLENT points, one by one. You rule!


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 4, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> OK, I'm sorry. You really are blind. But the old fart can help......but first we have to test you to make sure how severe your vision problems are.
> http://www.maxiaids.com/products/1624/Kindergarten-Eye-Chart.html


Its glaucoma and its not funny


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 4, 2014)

So ben, whats your feelings on trimming out under the screen in a SCROG setup? Or runaway branches in a SOG set up? in your professional opinion should those be taken care of? (Trimmed off)


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> So ben, whats your feelings on trimming out under the screen in a SCROG setup? Or runaway branches in a SOG set up? in your professional opinion should those be taken care of? (Trimmed off)


You need to go back and read my posts, one or two pages back. I addressed your question. CO2 flag ring a bell?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 4, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Bullshit.....
> 
> Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.  Here, I'll repeat my very recent response since reading comprehension is not your strongest suit. Look at da pretty peetures and see for yourself, uhhhhhhhh, indoor gardens, just in case you didn't get it the first time.
> 
> ...


Wow, thats one way to debate. Just type in "bullshit" then go back after the conversation has gone a page ahead and edit in a four paragraph reply when no ones looking to make yourself look smart!? Are you serious!? Thats some pretty low shit Ben. 
Wow, that takes stones. I think im going to go edit all my posts in this thread to include the line "UB is a sneaky little creep, watch that hes not editing his posts from pages back to make it look like he has a point"


----------



## reasonevangelist (Oct 4, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> You do what you want but if you'll LOOK at photos #3 & 4 in this thread which clearly reveals leaves over leaves, branches extending into other plants' branches.... https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/ ....you'll see that your theories, your feelings, are totally invalid as are most. We're talkin' the real world here.
> 
> Uncle Ben


Well, i tried to bring this to a common ground of civility. Feels like wasted energy.


----------



## Doer (Oct 4, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Fighting is not my goal. What id like to show is that you cant sit behind a computer and say things like never trim off branches, or never take off a fan leaf. Its just wrong. I stripped 80% of the fan leaves off a friends dwc because of mite damage and they all grew back throughout veg and the plant was great*. DEFOLIATION at its finest. *Blanket statements will always be disputed because their almost always disputable.


It is a hardy plant and you are a commercial grower, and I have keep a personal use journal here for years. And aren't you sitting at a computer typing? The difference is you are defending your commercial story. Boring. Here is a jingoism. It is a blanket statement "at its finest," Sigmund Freud. *"DEFOLIATION at its finest."* Good one, now go smoke a bowl how about? Your self defeating banter is showing.

When I grow without trimming I get dense bottom nugs. So, maybe you didn't feed correctly. The Nutes business is full of ganja myths. It is a hardy plant that can grow by candle light practically. Of course, It can be stripped. It can be kept as a bonsai, dwarfed mom for years. That is hardly the point, so don't dance around. We are just discussing here, not attacking your business.

Maybe you too could learn something for real and teach us. I'm open to that.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 4, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> Well, i tried to bring this to a common ground of civility. Feels like wasted energy.


Anytime ben gets into a thread it turns to "shit fer brains" this and "bullshit" that. Its his arrogant style. Just bear with it  e-ammo usually flies and learning happens in some form or another. 


Uncle Ben said:


> You need to go back and read my posts, one or two pages back. I addressed your question. CO2 flag ring a bell?


nope, i cant find it. I looked and all i found is your edited quote and a couple nonsense "BULLSHIT's" thrown about.

So can you just answer the question, whats your feelings about the stuff under the SCROG? Or the runaway branches in SOG? Should you trim them off?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 4, 2014)

Doer said:


> It is a hardy plant and you are a commercial grower, and I have keep a personal use journal here for years. And aren't you sitting at a computer typing? The difference is you are defending your commercial story. Boring. Here is a jingoism. It is a blanket statement "at its finest," Sigmund Freud. *"DEFOLIATION at its finest."* Good one, now go smoke a bowl how about? Your self defeating banter is showing.
> 
> When I grow without trimming I get dense bottom nugs. So, maybe you didn't feed correctly. The Nutes business is full of ganja myths. It is a hardy plant that can grow by candle light practically. Of course, It can be stripped. It can be kept as a bonsai, dwarfed mom for years. That is hardly the point, so don't dance around. We are just discussing here, not attacking your business.
> 
> Maybe you too could learn something for real and teach us. I'm open to that.


Doer i think you are one of the smartest members here. Your work on Heisenburgs thread was amazing. I refuse to debate with you because everything you say is usually bang on. Ben on the other hand is so funny, he know a lot as well but is so pompus and so theres no grey area its hilarious. I mean the guys got a thread claiming topping as his own invention lmao and claims lolly popping is wrong, along with defoliation...period...end of story...no grey area...no way and no how...never...ever. My response to that in the words of the great and powerfull UB himself.......bullshit.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 4, 2014)

I read a few pages back about someone saying led lights cant grow a+ weed only B+. I can say light is 1/4 what it takes to grow them right. you must have all in play. Lights are what is needed to finish your style environment. If heat is an issue led's could be the cure. I think fluorescent can do it as well as hid and led. Dont blame the lights when it fails, blame yourself. If you read what they say you will get it.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 5, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Anytime ben gets into a thread it turns to "shit fer brains" this and "bullshit" that. Its his *arrogant* style.


Pot calling the kettle black. Whew, where in hell do these people come from? Washington D.C.?

It's a (natural) reaction. Someone needs to check their own nasty and arrogant posting decorum out.... witness your FIRST post in this thread. --> "
*Wow, seems uncle ben still hasnt figured out that you get better, bigger, more fully developed buds when theres light getting to them. Youd think a guy with a head of knowledge like he has would be able to look at a cannabis plant and see how poorly the bottom buds turn out on some genetics and concede. If you grow big canopies indoor youll see light green underdeveloped scraglies where theres a lack of light. Same thing with pruning a tomato plant. Its common sense. Proper pruning produces better quality more uniform fruits. Fact." *

You, a hypocrite, come in a here like a bull in a china/crystal store full of forum folklore and hearsay and void of botanical fact. Expect to be corrected by those who are willing to take the time to help - Chuck, Doer, Caretaker, me, and others.

And to correct you again, I never said that topping was my invention. Topping to get 2 - 4 main colas is/was, about 15 years ago. I introduced it before there was Vbulletin type forums, while you was still messin' in your drawers and I was experimenting with cannabis until there was no tommorrow. 

Lollipopping is not only wrong, it's stupid. Regarding SOG or SCROG (which I'd never do) if the leaves are yellowing, obviously not productive, then yank them. If they are green, leave them alone. Let the plant drop them on it's own accord. Needless to say they are not as active (productive) as their newer counterparts but they are still involved in the overall functioning and welfare of the plant - they are transpiring and act as food storage units aka resources for the plant. _Like I said_, via a CO2 flag the plant will drop them (first pulling the metabolites from the leaf tissue) when the leaf's CO2 processing activity falls below a certain level.

UB


----------



## axl (Oct 5, 2014)

Pass it Around said:


> I just went to my boys house and he has the bottom 2 feet of all his plants empty... not a leaf not a bud... only sticks. I just don't get why someone would do it... he said air flow but really put another fuckin fan in there you know what I mean?
> 
> Anyways I just wanna know if there is any scientific evidence that this does anything good for the plant? He also said something about only getting big buds but he also strips the 2 feet in ONE day...
> 
> to me thats like taking a fuckin chainsaw to your ladies and asking them to perform great after.


There are a lot of valid reasons dude. The light intensity drastically is reduced the further away from the buds are from the light. So, one of the reasons i do it is to avoid having any bullshit, immature, undeveloped popcorn bud. Not doing it has the plant wasting energy, it could be sending to the top, primo buds, on those, again, shitty little popcorn buds. Dont have any scientific evidence for you, just my own experience. My yields are the same regardless, but again, by lollypoping, the amount i get is all good shit, and no undeveloped buds


----------



## Doer (Oct 5, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Doer i think you are one of the smartest members here. Your work on Heisenburgs thread was amazing. I refuse to debate with you because everything you say is usually bang on. Ben on the other hand is so funny, he know a lot as well but is so pompus and so theres no grey area its hilarious. I mean the guys got a thread claiming topping as his own invention lmao and claims lolly popping is wrong, along with defoliation...period...end of story...no grey area...no way and no how...never...ever. My response to that in the words of the great and powerfull UB himself.......bullshit.


I know, man. It is all OK. And from my perspective Ben got pushed pretty hard before he said that. You need to own up for your part. I'm kinda hoping you would see things more reasonably.

There is no way possible for You, Me or Ben to discover much new about Botany. So, of course, when he says "Uncle Ben's" technique FOR..... he didn't say he invented plant topping.. That was done at O'dark:30: Dawn of Man. You know that, too.

So, it is the same with Heisenberg. We call it H-tea, Bennies, or whatever, and it works, but he didn't invent that. He found out about it, did his trials and research, and told us. The same with Ben. And I have read almost all of his stuff and most of it is re-printed in IC Mag, and some is here. The guy does not have an egotistic bone in his body. You and I however....different story, maybe, huh? 

Ben and I tangle in Politics, but not here. See? I think it is kinda cool, to come up with names like Uncle Ben's Topping Technique or Doer's Dog Pile. I didn't invent trash talk, nor am I claiming that. I talk about it.

Ben is educating us and we are fortunate in that. I have learned a lot and many here owe their success directly to Ben. So, I say RIU is not for debate. Debate has rules and a moderator keeping time. Debate is face to face. Here we are having discussions. And in discussions, some have it correct in the Botany sense, and some, not so much, at times.. But we are all trying to learn, not trash-bomb each other.

That is what Politics is for. See?


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 5, 2014)

All here is a flower for peace on a great sunday. Now this is day 25 under fluorescent lights and I have not seen this as much under led/hps/cmh which i have them all and have used them all to grow this strain.
enjoy your fresh flower all. oh yeah click on it to zoom.


----------



## Doer (Oct 5, 2014)

axl said:


> There are a lot of valid reasons dude. The light intensity drastically is reduced the further away from the buds are from the light. So, one of the reasons i do it is to avoid having any bullshit, immature, undeveloped popcorn bud. Not doing it has the plant wasting energy, it could be sending to the top, primo buds, on those, again, shitty little popcorn buds. Dont have any scientific evidence for you, just my own experience. My yields are the same regardless, but again, by lollypoping, the amount i get is all good shit, and no undeveloped buds


No. Yields are not the same and you have a scale, can do the tests and should know better.

Plants do not "waste" energy. The entire argument is a specious Ganja Myth, Light is used by the entire plant, not just the part it falls on. The leaves lower down are bigger so their PAR efficiency is the same. Leaves don't block PAR, etc.

The reason my buds are dense down low and green, etc, is because I don't withhold nitrogen. If you feed correctly and don't take leaves you get more THC. So, your ideas are all commercial about the looks, only.

Did you even read this thread?

You too, are suffering from 6 assumptions that don't fit the Botanical Science of this.

I posted all that a few pages back, Please, do keep up. Thanks.


----------



## Doer (Oct 5, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> I read a few pages back about someone saying led lights cant grow a+ weed only B+. I can say light is 1/4 what it takes to grow them right. you must have all in play. Lights are what is needed to finish your style environment. If heat is an issue led's could be the cure. I think fluorescent can do it as well as hid and led. Dont blame the lights when it fails, blame yourself. If you read what they say you will get it.


Light Watts is 3/4 of the need, if I want to grow A+ pot. Light alone makes the THC. It can grow with a very low light but will not produce the Meds. The other part 1/4, is me getting a plant Vegged up, that can take a lot of light.


----------



## Doer (Oct 5, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Pot calling the kettle black. Whew, where in hell do these people come from? Washington D.C.?
> 
> It's a (natural) reaction. Someone needs to check their own nasty and arrogant posting decorum out.... witness your FIRST post in this thread. --> "
> *Wow, seems uncle ben still hasnt figured out that you get better, bigger, more fully developed buds when theres light getting to them. Youd think a guy with a head of knowledge like he has would be able to look at a cannabis plant and see how poorly the bottom buds turn out on some genetics and concede. If you grow big canopies indoor youll see light green underdeveloped scraglies where theres a lack of light. Same thing with pruning a tomato plant. Its common sense. Proper pruning produces better quality more uniform fruits. Fact." *
> ...


The way we do this in CA is via commercial grading. We have top, middle and bottom shelf, all by LOOKS. So weird, since it is all Assayed for THC concentration also. But, it is not sold that way.

You commercial guys will make more money if you offer grades. If you sell a Cola oz for $300, you can sell popcorn for $150 and it will probably have slightly more THC than the Colas, but don't say that. You still want to sell the Colas. And your cola production will not suffer. It will improve if you let all that carefully laid leaf pattern, live it's natural PAR life.
Ever run out of Cola Zs? Sell the popcorn.

Think about this, No one is around to pull the leaves off landrace strains in Tibet or keep it seedless. Yet, by all accounts, it is the strongest, and best stuff. Hand rolling hash, there, is simply to get the seeds out. So, that is real. Even seedless does not increase potency. Yet Another Myth.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 5, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> All here is a flower for peace on a great sunday. Now this is day 25 under fluorescent lights and I have not seen this as much under led/hps/cmh which i have them all and have used them all to grow this strain.
> enjoy your fresh flower all. oh yeah click on it to zoom.


Looking good! 

You mention light sources and then there's W./s.f., another myth I busted 15 years ago when there was no pot forums, only newsgroups to talk pot - ADPC. A few folks were bragging about 100W/s.f., the "more light the better"..... totally out of control macho stuff. I brought the facts, that every plant and that includes cannabis, has a light saturation point. Man, you'd thought I shot their dog. It's all relative - NO ONE has the same type hood, efficiency, lamps, lamp age, etc. I got flamed for not going along with the herd, and that was like 15 years or so ago! Nothing's changed. 

For the record, I grew my avatar from start to finish with HPS only. So much for all the spectrum hype. As long as there's blues, a plain Jane HPS is fine and yes it has blues. I have never grown a plant that had such a rock hard cola as the one in my avatar.

Many ex RIU members got fed up with this place and are posting at the Riddle site, that includes you and me. It's pretty cool to see Cruz doing the Dalat I gifted him, going on 8' now. It's gonna be a monster. I only did it indoors so journals like that is pretty damn exciting for me!

UB


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 5, 2014)

Doer I dont want to argue.Light isnt 3/4 seen a kessil 150 grow 4 small plants and produce 1.5 grams per watt of good meds.That was GOD's scrog grow and he yielded 2 oz on his best grow but got 1.5 oz allot. I do like the big lights but my fav right now is my t5ho 648 watt with ati bulbs. 
Thank you UB. I do love how we dont argue over at riddle. I do admit when i have been beet and you all beet me up enough on removing leaves, so I will not unless they are dead or dam near dead.


----------



## Doer (Oct 5, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Looking good!
> 
> You mention light sources and then there's W./s.f., another myth I busted 15 years ago when there was no pot forums, only newsgroups to talk pot - ADPC. A few folks were bragging about 100W/s.f., the "more light the better"..... totally out of control macho stuff. I brought the facts, that every plant and that includes cannabis, has a light saturation point. Man, you'd thought I shot their dog. It's all relative - NO ONE has the same type hood, efficiency, lamps, lamp age, etc. I got flamed for not going along with the herd, and that was like 15 years or so ago! Nothing's changed.
> 
> ...


You just have to burn a few to understand this one. My first run of WW I did that. I let them grow up into a 1000w water cooled HPS hood. Not good. It bleaches the leaves, but what do I know? White Widow? But, It burned the tricomes and made it taste weird. It cured to a spongy cardboard consistency and was not smoke-able. It just sat in the jar, 9 ozs, until I got it together to extract, only 9 grams. That is a pitiful yield.


----------



## Doer (Oct 5, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> Doer I dont want to argue.Light isnt 3/4 seen a kessil 150 grow 4 small plants and produce 1.5 grams per watt of good meds.That was GOD's scrog grow and he yielded 2 oz on his best grow but got 1.5 oz allot. I do like the big lights but my fav right now is my t5ho 648 watt with ati bulbs.
> Thank you UB. I do love how we dont argue over at riddle. I do admit when i have been beet and you all beet me up enough on removing leaves, so I will not unless they are dead or dam near dead.


No argument my friend, just my experience. Remember, I never said a word about quantity,

Light is quality.


----------



## Doer (Oct 5, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> .
> Thank you UB. I do love how we dont argue over at riddle. I do admit when i have been beet and you all beet me up enough on removing leaves, so I will not unless they are dead or dam near dead.


I wait until when I touch them, they come right off. It it just a brown crispy by then. Before that the girl is still draining back feed from that leaf.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 5, 2014)

right on bro. I am learning indoors and UB has helped me. I trust him and it took a bit so i know i want to take some off it but wont till they either fall off or like you said are crispy brownish


----------



## churchhaze (Oct 5, 2014)

Lollipopping isn't a defoliation method. It should be thought of more like topping, only at the lower end of the plant. You're supposed to leave the leaves!

Lollipopping doesn't mean butchering a giant Christmas tree into a stick. That's the noob way to lollipop, and it is a waste of energy to cut off giant branches. They spent an enormous amount of their food(sugars) building those long bottom branches.. *That would be like cutting off the top half of your plant and calling it topping.* It's not true lollipopping.

Real lollipopping is a technique used by SOG growers meant to go with low to no veg time. Side shoots are cut off *immediately* as soon as they're big enough to cut off, but DO NOT CUT THE LEAVES. They will come off on their own if they aren't getting enough light!


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 5, 2014)

my cutting privileges have been revoked so i am shutting up. UB took my snips till they are ready to chop. Now to blow you mind. I can dry cure on the plant. done it already with my last c99. Wow how great it was. So all you choppers can chop and loose allot of quality. But as far as removing anything nope unless its a plant to take a clone from.


----------



## a mongo frog (Oct 5, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> my cutting privileges have been revoked so i am shutting up. UB took my snips till they are ready to chop. Now to blow you mind. I can dry cure on the plant. done it already with my last c99. Wow how great it was. So all you choppers can chop and loose allot of quality. But as far as removing anything nope unless its a plant to take a clone from.


this guy said "loose quality." Wake up friend, quit living in fantasy land. Please know your garden is not the best. Can tell by how much cock you've smoking. "UB took my snips".... Wtf.......


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 6, 2014)

See i knew it people just love to argue here.


----------



## Aeroknow (Oct 6, 2014)

For anyone on the fence about lollipopping:
You know, This is just another thing that will get argued over and over and over again
My advice is to run a "scientific" experiment yourself. YOU be the judge, and find out if it is for you.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 6, 2014)

reasonevangelist said:


> *Excess red and far red, penetrate.
> 
> Yes, it does, but to varying degrees. And this then causes specific effects and/or reactions in the parts of the plant receiving different (and perhaps insufficient) amounts and wavelengths. I've been doing research for what i consider to be a significant amount of time now (especially since i'm in the LED camp, where we have increased incentive to take note of spectral differences and specific wavelengths, since eliminating "wasted light" is one of the efficiency benefits of LED...). How much useful light actually passes through a nearly opaque top leaf? Two nearly opaque top leaves? Three? According to my own visual assessment: not very damn much! When i see wilting under-leaves, but everything else looks great, this tells me those under-leaves are Not getting enough useful light, despite the granted fact that certain wavelengths do indeed pass through. At some point, all the useful photons have been snared by leaf material; if any leaf material remains beyond this point, they are not getting enough light, which is where my previous comment comes from: spend energy to grow under-leaves which will never get enough light to contribute effectively, or snip them before the plant spends energy to grow something that cannot contribute (and thus causes detriment via wasted energy)?
> 
> ...


You covered almost everything. Thanx. Another intelligent reader. Few of us here. Now to finish your thread. The tricoms with their ball on top of a clear stem act like fiber optic collectors the redistribute the light. But they magnified and direct it towards the bud. Bud photosynthesis too. And if you noticed they ate darker them the leaves. Because they do it more efficiently then leaf. About 3 to 6 times more. So once you have three weeks worth of bud growth it can do all the work. Also the pants reaction to stripping leaves is to increase resin and put more on the smaller leaves you didn't take to keep them from being removed. Plant doesn't know we exist. A million years of ingrains. To them were just another animal eating the non resigned leaves. So if that's all were taking the plant react by putting more resin to stop the eating. 
Those that leave all leaf harvest a pound of bud and over a pound of leaf. Take the leaf and harvest all bud. Plant still makes the same weight total. Just like lollipopping doesn't take away weight, just distributes it towards the tip of the branch where the plant has an easier time growing then down low.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannasutraorganics said:


> You covered almost everything. Thanx. Another *intelligent* reader. Few of us here. Now to finish your thread. The tricoms with their ball on top of a clear stem act like fiber optic collectors the redistribute the light. But they magnified and direct it towards the bud. Bud photosynthesis too.* And if you noticed they ate darker them the leaves.* Because they do it more efficiently then leaf. About 3 to 6 times more. So once you have three weeks worth of bud growth it can do all the work. Also the *pants* reaction to stripping leaves is to increase resin and put more on the smaller leaves you didn't take to keep them from being removed. Plant doesn't know we exist. A million years of ingrains. To them were just another animal eating the non resigned leaves. So if that's all were taking the plant react by putting more resin to stop the eating.
> Those that leave all leaf harvest a pound of bud and over a pound of leaf. Take the leaf and harvest all bud. Plant still makes the same weight total. Just like lollipopping doesn't take away weight, just distributes it towards the tip of the branch where the plant has an easier time growing then down low.


First, learn how to spell and form proper sentences, BEFORE you try telling us how intelligent you are. You lose a lot of credibility if you can't even spell.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 6, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> First, learn how to spell and form proper sentences, BEFORE you try telling us how intelligent you are. You lose a lot of credibility if you can't even spell.


Those that point out grammar, spelling and punctuation have lost the argument already. So I stone type on a iPad. I don't proff read. Sorry your so sensitive to it like a bitch..


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 6, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> First, learn how to spell and form proper sentences, BEFORE you try telling us how intelligent you are. You lose a lot of credibility if you can't even spell.


People like you fuck up a wet dream.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannasutraorganics said:


> People like you fuck up a wet dream.


Thanks for showing your intelligence, ROFLMFAO


----------



## DarthBlazeAnthony (Oct 6, 2014)

bf80255 said:


> View attachment 3263414 View attachment 3263418
> 
> very lightly, ill chop here and there as i go instead of just lopping off 50% at once just take a leaf here and there if its too crowded until it starts lookin real clean then ease up but it just depends on how your growing ive done 50% lops in the past with little ill effect its kinda strain dependent too. if your growing a purple urkle clone or a cross of urk then i would never suggest taking too much off at once (shits supe slow) but this strain shoots up fast so lopping is fine.


I believe your plants stretched a great deal. Did you consider scrogging?


----------



## DarthBlazeAnthony (Oct 6, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> Sure. Couple phone pics....
> 
> View attachment 3265022
> View attachment 3265023
> View attachment 3265025


what strain? that is awesome!!!


----------



## st0wandgrow (Oct 6, 2014)

DarthBlazeAnthony said:


> what strain? that is awesome!!!



Thanks! Those are all different. First one is Fat Marty Grape Stomper x Exodus Cheese, second pic is Bodhi Dream Lotus, and the last is Bodhi Gogi OG


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 6, 2014)

DarthBlazeAnthony said:


> what strain? that is awesome!!!


I agree they are smaller than i usually grow but wow they are lovely and i want to smoke some with you all. Frosty and hello.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 6, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> Thanks! Those are all different. First one is Fat Marty Grape Stomper x Exodus Cheese, second pic is Bodhi Dream Lotus, and the last is Bodhi Gogi OG


I can say well done. I think you understand how to get them good. I had a plant finish (dry and start curing) in the pot and it really was/is outstanding. If you get time do a bit of researching about it. I can say i will try it again and again to make sure while i chop other plants to compare to. This is not a new thing it has been around a long long time. I am bringing it back as another on the other site is also.


----------



## bf80255 (Oct 6, 2014)

DarthBlazeAnthony said:


> I believe your plants stretched a great deal. Did you consider scrogging?


Probably from the high heat but whys it matter? Still only took 90 days seed to harvest on 12/12 and i have no height isue so... why is stretch bad?
Oh and btw im a breeder so this run was to assess progeny of an f2 full sib cross, high numbers are a must so scrogging is illogical


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 6, 2014)

Sativa's stretch so dont worry or listen. to many haters here. They want to argue about anything. you did good. Learn from it and keep growing. Nobody is 100% right here.


----------



## hydroMD (Oct 6, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> First, learn how to spell and form proper sentences, BEFORE you try telling us how intelligent you are. You lose a lot of credibility if you can't even spell.


Lmao, spelling takes zero credibility away from his opinion. The only thing you have shown us is you cannot decipher english when iys not perfect.

(Read entire sentence, skip over unknown word. Once you have understood the sentence plug in a word that u think fits. Day 1 stuff bruh)


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 6, 2014)

hydroMD said:


> Lmao, spelling takes zero credibility away from his opinion. The only thing you have shown us is you cannot decipher english when iys not perfect.
> 
> (Read entire sentence, skip over unknown word. Once you have understood the sentence plug in a word that u think fits. Day 1 stuff bruh)


not being able to form a sentence takes it all away in my book, especially when you sit there and type that you think you're more intelligent than the rest. Talk about LMFAO.


----------



## DarthBlazeAnthony (Oct 6, 2014)

L.M.F.A.O.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 6, 2014)

LMFAO - Liking Mings Facial Avocado Offerings


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 7, 2014)

That only tells me you are not baked. If you was smoking my stuff you wouldn't be able to spell/type right.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 7, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> That only tells me you are not baked. If you was smoking my stuff you wouldn't be able to spell/type right.


Please, STFU no one is even paying attention to your posts
UB should take away your posting privileges and put them with your scissors


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 7, 2014)

Doer said:


> The way we do this in CA is via commercial grading. We have top, middle and bottom shelf, all by LOOKS. So weird, since it is all Assayed for THC concentration also. But, it is not sold that way.
> 
> You commercial guys will make more money if you offer grades. If you sell a Cola oz for $300, you can sell popcorn for $150 and it will probably have slightly more THC than the Colas, but don't say that. You still want to sell the Colas. And your cola production will not suffer. It will improve if you let all that carefully laid leaf pattern, live it's natural PAR life.
> Ever run out of Cola Zs? Sell the popcorn.
> ...


Yes no yes no lol 
Ive never seen dispensaries sell popcorn discounted. Only heres our X. Or we have Y. If its no good then take Z. That takes the 150 for popy bud outta the question. And if the lolly popping only seems in my unscientific studies on the same strain for five concecutive grows with it to make less tiny buds, and more large buds.....well then im going to shoot for the way that grows big buds. I mean after all im sure your not implying my goal be to grow popcorn instead of thumb sized nugs right?


----------



## Doer (Oct 7, 2014)

Dude. Let's be clear. You read in implications. I'm not making them. 

Here, popcorn is $240 and top shelf is $400.


----------



## Doer (Oct 7, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> Sativa's stretch so dont worry or listen. to many haters here. They want to argue about anything. you did good. Learn from it and keep growing. Nobody is 100% right here.


The entire subject of stretching is as full of ganja myth as the rest of the topics.


----------



## Doer (Oct 7, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> That only tells me you are not baked. If you was smoking my stuff you wouldn't be able to spell/type right.


But, you could still manage to spell/type correctly, right?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 7, 2014)

Well then id like all my nuggs to sell for 400 if possible. 240 would not be acceptable. And if the yields are comparable shucking or not, then a $160 loss (over 25%) wouldnt cover the minimal amount of lost bag weight. Still no points scored


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 7, 2014)

Doer said:


> But, you could still manage to spell/type correctly, right?


I try to spell check. Sometimes I am so baked. My grammer isnt the best. Math was my subject I liked in school.


----------



## Doer (Oct 7, 2014)

Why do you think I am trying to score points? I must have forgotten.

You miss the logic, still.

If your stripped sticks will produce 1 oz of primo cola,
it would have produced that, plus 1 oz of popcorn, ALSO of the same THC content.
In other words you are throwing away 1/2 of your yield. And you could sell 2 grades and make MORE MONEY.

But, believe me, really? I don't give a shit what you do or if you agree or not.

So, simple math, $400 PLUS the $150 that you threw away by stripping the sticks below.


----------



## Doer (Oct 7, 2014)

DCobeen said:


> I try to spell check. Sometimes I am so baked. My grammer isnt the best. Math was my subject I liked in school.


Well I agree with you. Spelling/grammar here is the least of it and not at all important.

Keeping colas arm length? That's important.


----------



## DarthBlazeAnthony (Oct 7, 2014)

Doer said:


> The entire subject of stretching is as full of ganja myth as the rest of the topics.


True or False: If the light is too from the plant it will stretch.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 7, 2014)

Yeah i had a 3 oz bud(dried) my BB and it was 30% lollipop. But it was AIS hydro soil that made the diff. I had to stop AIS till the temps get right. I will make a setup and get a chiller. THen AIS will be back on and watch out for the best of both worlds.


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 7, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> No they don't. It's obvious you have never grown outdoors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First... I am not anywhere near as experienced as you are as a horticulturist.. so please.. go easy on me. I am here to learn, not fight.

I have seen something that leads me to believe you are wrong, UB. The thing is, I have always agreed with what you say. I'm curious if what I have seen and what you know can co exist?

I grow a sativa hybrid (yep, a mutt) in my flower room. The plant will grow up past the reflectors if I do not train it or if I over veg it.
I have grown this plant in several ways, but, a few of those times I have just went ahead and topped the plant after it passes the height of the reflector (no vertical room to raise the light).
I have bent, topped, trellis, tried many things. I have also left the tops, occasionally, to grow above the reflector.. After they pass the reflector (which they will do, not turn around for the light) they stop developing density and size. They just stop.
This usually happens around wk 4. and they stay like the rest of the growth was in wk 4 while the rest of the plants continues to develop. I have never checked the resin glands to see if the weak tops develop. But I can say with 100% certainty that the tops above the reflector do not develop as well as the branches just below the light, yet, they are at the top of the plant.. or the highest point in elevation. Did you not say that that is not how it works? I have seen it and I could repeat it again


What I am wondering is...
-can what I am seeing and what you are saying both exist? Can what I am seeing really happen if you are correct about all you say in this thread?

these are some of the replies from you that conflict with what I am seeing (I think).

reasonevangelist said:
Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best.

UB said:
No they don't.
reasonevangelist said:
It's possible for the lowest branch to assume apical dominance, if it's the part of the plant receiving the best light.

UB said:
No it's not, as I articulated in quite a few of the (never ending) defoliation threads. Again, that statement reflects the mindset of most of the members at RIU


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 7, 2014)

RambleOnRose said:


> I have seen something that leads me to believe you are wrong, UB. The thing is, I have always agreed with what you say and I think there is probably a likely explanation for this.
> I grow a sativa hybrid (yep, a mutt) in my flower room.. The plant will grow up past the reflectors if I do not train it or if I over veg it.
> I have grown this plant in several ways, but, a few of those times I have just went ahead and topped the plant after it passes the height of the reflector (no vertical room to raise the light).
> 
> ...


Nope, your observations are incorrect, you must have been high the whole time.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 7, 2014)

^^real pictures of uncle Ben By the way^^


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 7, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> ^^real pictures of uncle Ben By the way^^


I've never seen that movie. I don't get it..?

I sort of remember you defending UB in these threads, about a year ago? Wasn't that you? You were new to RIU and i THOUGHT new to growing? What happened?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 7, 2014)

Maybe it was two or three years ago? Maybe he was right about something? I kiss peoples asses all the time but Ben has always rubbed me wrong with his all or nothing attitude and ive been argueing with him for as long as i can remember. But you are right about one thing, i was a new grower once, and i started here, and i did once post a thread asking the community what do i do when i found a male in my flock.  ive done a lot of growing since then and im a gawd damn hard worker and ive upped my game in alot of ways since i started. Ha, i kissed everyones ass when i started here im sure, i didnt know shit. Now i just enjoy hangin out here and helping new growers be successful and diagnosing plant problems if i can help. Kinda like paying back to the site that taught me to grow. Now days i run more strains than most people have plants on this site but in the past i had some killer grows for how inexperienced i was. I just always kept it simple and i still do to an extent lol


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

RambleOnRose said:


> First... I am not anywhere near as experienced as you are as a horticulturist.. so please.. go easy on me. I am here* to learn, not fight.*
> 
> I have seen something that leads me to believe *you are wrong, UB*. The thing is, I have always agreed with what you say. I'm curious if what I have seen and what you know can co exist?
> 
> ...


It is very simple. You don't design experiments. You are imposing a pattern without understanding the controls for that pattern. Pattens are called stitions, They are everywhere and are the basis of all science.

But our mind will also overlay or superimpose our own false patterns. These are the super-stitions, the anathema of all science.

You think the quality of light above the hood is the same as the quality under the leaves? NO.

Above the hood there is practically no light. A plant will not grow into a no light condition when it has plenty of light elsewhere, It just cut that off. It has not use since it gets NO PAR RADIATION.

So, are you reading this thread or not? I have been through this several times in detail already.

Light is whole plant resource and they will grow into light but the parts that get NO LIGHT are sacrificed.

You are straining to force fit your superstition. Have you ever seen a plant that will turn around and duck under a light? Hell no. So you are bringing in a false assumption, as well.

IAC, there is plenty of PAR below the leaves since leaves pass quite a bit of PAR, And there is NO PAR above a light. So, it is not that the plant is not growing. This is your 3rd false argument. It is growing quite will below the light where there is plenty of PAR even for the larger lower leaves,

You expect it to keep growing out into the dark above the light or turn around and duck in, and that is just foolishly made up conjecture. Light is a whole plant resource not to be wastes pushing growth into blackness.

And I must say, it is very hinky to come on and say you don't want to fight, but Ben is wrong, and then you are propose these false premises.

Grip up, swing more smoothly, I'd advise. And Ben appreciates me taking a turn at bat.
Thanks, Ben.

Science vs superstition


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

RambleOnRose said:


> I've never seen that movie. I don't get it..?
> 
> I sort of remember you defending UB in these threads, about a year ago? Wasn't that you? You were new to RIU and i THOUGHT new to growing? What happened?


Would please see Star Wars and would you all please stop being so personal. No one needs to be defended since no one needs to be attacked.


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 8, 2014)

Doer said:


> Would please see Star Wars and would you all please stop being so personal. No one needs to be defended since no one needs to be attacked.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say. But if that was directed at me.. I am neither attacking or defending anyone. I'm just here to talk about MJ with other people who want to chat about MJ. That's all.. 

Not really a star wars fan..

Damn! Then I read your reply to my post and you are angry?

I'm really genuine here. I'm not here to argue. I haven't followed all of your past posts on the matter. So I have not seen where you went over this already many times..
If my question bothers you then just ignore me. I will not take it personally.

All is well.. I'm just here to chat.


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

I never get angry. It is not good for us. 

You were talking about attacking and defending, remember?


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 8, 2014)

Doer said:


> It is very simple. You don't design experiments. You are imposing a pattern without understanding the controls for that pattern. Pattens are called stitions, They are everywhere and are the basis of all science.
> 
> But our mind will also overlay or superimpose our own false patterns. These are the super-stitions, the anathema of all science.
> 
> ...



Man; I'm trying to be civil here. But you are guilty of the accusations you make against me.
Let's just take a deep breath.. If you do not want to talk with me on the subject, just ignore it. No sweat.


- I have not seen a plant turn around (vertically) and chase light.. I have horizontally though.

I am reading your reply right now and coming up with some questions.
Again, if they bother you just ignore me.


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

I am not guilty of anything, you seem to have a guilty conscious, maybe?

I am not accusing you of anything, but if I was, so what? It doesn't make me "guilty" of it.

See what I mean? You are somewhat passive-aggressive and I respond to aggression.


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 8, 2014)

Doer said:


> I never get angry. It is not good for us.
> 
> You were talking about attacking and defending, remember?


Yeah.. I remembered Ninjabowler used to always participate in these argument on the "UB side".. I asked what changed? Why he now feels differently..


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 8, 2014)

Doer said:


> I am not guilty of anything, you seem to have a guilty conscious, maybe?
> 
> I am not accusing you of anything, and I was, so what?


 Dude. you have me deeply confused.

Let's drop all of that..


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 8, 2014)

I understand you what you are saying about Par light passing through the leaves and reaching the lower leaves.. I think.. but that par does not reach above the light. That is interesting.
And it answers quite a bit of what I was asking.. thank you.. I really was asking, to learn, not to argue.


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

RambleOnRose said:


> Yeah.. I remembered Ninjabowler used to always participate in these argument on the "UB side".. I asked what changed? Why he now feels differently..


I wonder that too. Don't take me personally, OK?


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 8, 2014)

Doer said:


> I wonder that too. Don't take me personally, OK?


 I won't.. cool..


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 8, 2014)

So you are saying that the reason they grow below the light (and lower on the plant) better than above the light is because the light IS reaching lower on the plant because PAR is passing through leaves and providing light. The lack of light that we SEE is misleading.. because plants don't use the same as we see.

The growth above the light stopped because the light is not hitting up there. So the plant says "fuck it" and stops growing up there.

Am I on the right track?

And does that not conflict with this?

reasonevangelist said:
Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best.

UB said:
No they don't.

And then, which part of reasonevangelist statement is wrong?


----------



## RambleOnRose (Oct 8, 2014)

Doer said:


> But our mind will also overlay or superimpose our own false patterns. These are the super-stitions, the anathema of all science.


I know that this is true. This is why I presented my question in the way I did. Not saying "You are wrong, I am right because I saw this". Instead asking why I the presented conclusion is not correct.

I have always trusted UBs advice over anyone on RIU. And I still trust that he has the explanation why that conclusion is not correct. Dude, he's UB.. Whether he will take it easy on me or not... that is another question. 
I'm not playing games here. I'm cool..


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 8, 2014)

Doer said:


> It is very simple. You don't design experiments. You are imposing a pattern without understanding the controls for that pattern. Pattens are called stitions, They are everywhere and are the basis of all science.
> 
> You think the quality of light above the hood is the same as the quality under the leaves? NO.
> 
> ...


in fear of not bringing a scientific journal and getting blasted ill cautiously continue lol. 
The science that i conduct is like the directions on a shampoo bottle, lather, rinse, repeat. I run the same strain over and over again. Things change obviosly, temperatures, feed schedules, food amounts, ect. Its impossible not to have some degree of change from grow to grow. 
Regardless of the minor changes to my growing practices the science that ive seen shows that my inner plant, especially on puffball indicas grows pure crap that nobody wants. Not even me and ill smoke anything, im like a homless person sometimes with how i dont waste anything. No, instead its sad looking shwag. So i started lollypopping. What i do is hollow out those crap nugs, take off lower branches that produce crap anyway, and blamo! The rest of the plant now enjoys the root system even more than before because the crap i dont want isnt being babysat by the roots anymore. Instead those roots send all the nutrients they are now over produceing....right to where i want them. The fan leaves that are working the most efficiantly to bonerize my plant with gigantic buds. And when their done i notice an increase in bud size. From my scientific control.
My control is my first grow with every strain i run. Evey new plant gets a trial run. No messing with it, just letter go. When its done and ive stared at it man times when im medicated and in the bloom room, ill decide on how to lollypop its future runs. It may not be the bottom third, it may be the center only. Theres one strain i run where i lolly pop it so minamally its hardly noticeable because the profitable material runs all the way down to the bottom. She is an exception though. Most need trimming up.
So theres science for ya, control, observation, action, observation, hypothesis. The only thing im missing is grant money, proposals, edditors, and publishing in a scientific marijuana journal. 
It seems like you anti pruners always scream wheres the science because you know its not available. Nobody studies marijuana in acadimia because its illegal and theres no funding for illegal study. But fuck, if almost every other plant gets pruned then why wouldnt pot get it too. Is it some alien species? And im still waiting for you and Ben to make an appearance on the SCROG thread and tell all those guys that the plant will naturally drop its leaves and theres no worries, just leave it alone and become a believer...come to the dark side (get it? Under the untrimmed canopy  ). 
When the difference between making sales is based on smell and size of the buds then ill do everything i can to make sure both of these things are at maximum potential. After all, ive already told you that theres no reason that anyone should loose over a hundred dollars a zip due to produceing scrag and selling scrag, when the production weight isnt impacted by lolly popping by that same ratio of money loss between grades. Do the math yourself and youll see im right.


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

You're cool, ramble and I never thought otherwise.


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> in fear of not bringing a scientific journal and getting blasted ill cautiously continue lol.
> The science that i conduct is like the directions on a shampoo bottle, lather, rinse, repeat. I run the same strain over and over again. Things change obviosly, temperatures, feed schedules, food amounts, ect. Its impossible not to have some degree of change from grow to grow.
> 
> My control is my first grow with every strain i run. Evey new plant gets a trial run. No messing with it, just letter go. When its done and ive stared at it man times when im medicated and in the bloom room, ill decide
> ...


Why do you think this is some sort of conflict?

That is not science. That is not the use of a Control. It is not what we are talking about.

A Control plant experiment is when you raise both plants identically and rigorously control the change of one variable on the Test plant, ONLY. The Control and the Test are compared for objective factors, such as THC assay and weight and quality grades of buds.

If you do this experiment many times, with many pairs, you can for yourself what we are saying.

And now for the rest of it.

No one is screaming but you. We are not anti-anything. Your superstitions are your own and mean nothing to us at all.

It is not an alien species and you have made the point. What other plants do you know that get pruned to make medicine. Opium poppy? No. Valarian? No. Landrace Tebetian Kush? No. So, the Botany discussion, is about the production of THC.

Your *unfounded, unproved claim* is that you increase Cola Production. You don't. And I told you above how to prove that. You cling to a superstition. You offer nothing but harsh personal attacks and don't have a leg to stand on but, you continue repeating the superstition.

If you are selling for looks, you sacrifice yield. Apples are big example. But, If you decide you are selling to an extractor for juice then you want max weight of all the apples.

Juicers get more tons of apple per acre than whole apple guys. Simple botany.

So, If you are building rep on a one pony, big cola story, like a big apple story, that is your business. Some guys will sell Mopeds and Racing bikes, so what? Some will sell big cola story. All that is business modeling, not science.

If you leave it alone under SCROG you are much better off. It is much less strain on the plant. IAC, The more dense the canopy the less PAR. It all evens out. The plant will use all the light it gets and SCROG is not even an issue. So, we are not even talking about that. This is the Advanced Cultivation thread, not SCROG.

And lastly you are throwing away THC and that is a bad thing to do. You don't have to sell it. You can give it to the needy.


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 8, 2014)

Hello its me again, I chimed in on the subject not long ago. A fan of trimming the lower branches. And in my case it is definatly the way to go.
Now take in mind These are bottomless pots, with roots that can go into the ground, they only get sun from high in the sky, and they don't get much wind because of all the thick trees surrounding them. But now that they leaned over from the heavy rains you can see how I trim off the lower branches while it was growing up and even took out some inner growth.
No I don't have any clones grown side by side and fed exactly the same, but I did grow in this spot without trimming and it is way better to do it. (my growing situation makes it essential) But will always be a fan of trimming up the scraggly shit on the bottoms and inside.
I know doer is going to say NUH-UH, but I do believe you will get the same yield as long as you stop trimming by the first week of flower.


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

You believe that, huh? Did you happen to notice the thread title?


----------



## st0wandgrow (Oct 8, 2014)

RambleOnRose said:


> I'm not sure what you are trying to say.


Neither is he


----------



## Pass it Around (Oct 8, 2014)

Well, I can tell you guys one thing. The bottom half is going to hash for me and the top half is going to the jars . 

Loud seeds headband is pretty damn dank.


----------



## Doer (Oct 8, 2014)

That's the ticket


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 8, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> Hello its me again, I chimed in on the subject not long ago. A fan of trimming the lower branches. And in my case it is definatly the way to go.
> Now take in mind These are bottomless pots, with roots that can go into the ground, they only get sun from high in the sky, and they don't get much wind because of all the thick trees surrounding them. But now that they leaned over from the heavy rains you can see how I trim off the lower branches while it was growing up and even took out some inner growth.
> No I don't have any clones grown side by side and fed exactly the same, but I did grow in this spot without trimming and it is way better to do it. (my growing situation makes it essential) But will always be a fan of trimming up the scraggly shit on the bottoms and inside.
> I know doer is going to say NUH-UH, but I do believe you will get the same yield as long as you stop trimming by the first week of flower.View attachment 3269839


You can't be serious.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 8, 2014)

Doer said:


> Why do you think this is some sort of conflict?
> 
> That is not science. That is not the use of a Control. It is not what we are talking about.
> 
> ...


You scoff at my science huh? My tests dont make sence to you? Grow a plant, make changes, observe changes, draw a conclusion. We all made the same conclusion or there wouldnt be so many of us that do it lol. And screaming? Theres not even an exclamation mark in my post. I wrote the whole thing chuckling to myself  

So you claim that advanced marijuana growing is not indoor growing? Cause im pretty sure that theres way more complicated indoor grows with hydro systems and aquaponics, really indoor growing in general is more technical than out door growing. I mean outdoor....veg some plants and put them outside lol. Indoor aquaponics..........making sure your fish dont escape is way harder than holding a hose in a greenhouse dont you think? 

I love how you say we when you say were anti nothing, except your anti lolly popping  and so if my claim is unproven then is yours proven? Wheres your scientific data on my OG kush plants? Where does it say that OG kush is frostier if you dont lolly pop it indoor? 

Oh and btw, ive tried your claim that if you remove the tops and let the popcorn grow and it will be better pffffff! It sucked!i didnt lolly pop a run and i took off all the top stuff which was good. Then i let the bottom grow. It changed color, the strain had purple hues to it and the colors came out more. It went from yellow lime green, to purple and darker. Bit it was not very good at all. Im being honest with you, it sucked. I actually think i have some left from a year ago to be honest. It was my most embarrassing jars ever. That may have actually been the turning point where i changed my perspective on lolly popping. 

Also Doer, when you say that juicers get more tons of apples than whole apple guys its not basic botany, its basic capitalism. And i listen to capitalists over anyone else cause we live in a capitalist society. So if science says there will be a little more THC but lots of smaller buds, then keep that science and sell it to Camel cigarettes cause theyre going to need it when their selling us prerolled, till then ill use my science to grow faaaat nuuuugs!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> 1. You scoff at my science huh?
> 
> 2. My tests dont make sence to you?
> 
> ...


1. Yes. That's not science, it's bullshit.

2. No. That's not how it's done. 

3. Of course, now that's some real science.

4. A thousand flies on a pile of shit can't be wrong.


----------



## CaretakerDad (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> in fear of not bringing a scientific journal and getting blasted ill cautiously continue lol.
> The science that i conduct is like the directions on a shampoo bottle, lather, rinse, repeat. I run the same strain over and over again. Things change obviosly, temperatures, feed schedules, food amounts, ect. Its impossible not to have some degree of change from grow to grow.
> Regardless of the minor changes to my growing practices the science that ive seen shows that my inner plant, especially on puffball indicas grows pure crap that nobody wants. Not even me and ill smoke anything, im like a homless person sometimes with how i dont waste anything. No, instead its sad looking shwag. So i started lollypopping. What i do is hollow out those crap nugs, take off lower branches that produce crap anyway, and blamo! The rest of the plant now enjoys the root system even more than before because the crap i dont want isnt being babysat by the roots anymore. Instead those roots send all the nutrients they are now over produceing....right to where i want them. The fan leaves that are working the most efficiantly to bonerize my plant with gigantic buds. And when their done i notice an increase in bud size. From my scientific control.
> My control is my first grow with every strain i run. Evey new plant gets a trial run. No messing with it, just letter go. When its done and ive stared at it man times when im medicated and in the bloom room, ill decide on how to lollypop its future runs. It may not be the bottom third, it may be the center only. Theres one strain i run where i lolly pop it so minamally its hardly noticeable because the profitable material runs all the way down to the bottom. She is an exception though. Most need trimming up.
> ...


Please stop using term like "the science that I conduct" and "my scientific control" because you don't understand anything you are saying. Having worked for a paneled research biologist it is clear that you don't know the first thing about setting up a controlled experiment. You are just another internet circle puppet repeating bullshit because it makes you feel knowledgeable and feelings aren't science.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

CaretakerDad said:


> Please stop using term like "the science that I conduct" and "my scientific control" because you don't understand anything you are saying. Having worked for a paneled research biologist it is clear that you don't know the first thing about setting up a controlled experiment. You are just another internet circle puppet repeating bullshit because it makes you feel knowledgeable and *feelings aren't science*.


Sure it is, It's FEELGOOD BRO SCIENCE.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## DCobeen (Oct 9, 2014)

Sounds like you all need to do side by side grows to compare and prove it 1 way or the other. I would love to see that from you all who are so adamant in your ways. Science is the known not the unknown that is why science keeps changing and growing.


----------



## Doer (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> You scoff at my science huh? My tests dont make sence to you? Grow a plant, make changes, observe changes, draw a conclusion. We all made the same conclusion or there wouldnt be so many of us that do it lol. And screaming? Theres not even an exclamation mark in my post. I wrote the whole thing chuckling to myself
> 
> So you claim that advanced marijuana growing is not indoor growing? Cause im pretty sure that theres way more complicated indoor grows with hydro systems and aquaponics, really indoor growing in general is more technical than out door growing. I mean outdoor....veg some plants and put them outside lol. Indoor aquaponics..........making sure your fish dont escape is way harder than holding a hose in a greenhouse dont you think?
> 
> ...


You are an idiot, blowhard, but you are our idiot.  ...our own idiot that is not listening, a bit.

Good night, Princess. Survey your kingdom and take a caulk. Your religious dominion is safe in your mind, you anti-capitalist. There is your problem right there.

The Capital standing of the Giant Thinkers have brought us Science, just not to your mind, alas.


----------



## Doer (Oct 9, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> 1. Yes. That's not science, it's bullshit.
> 
> 2. No. That's not how it's done.
> 
> ...


4 - No, they are correct. It is horseshit, alright.


----------



## Doer (Oct 9, 2014)

Technique is not science, and science is not technique.

Please make a note.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 9, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Thanks for showing your intelligence, ROFLMFAO








*30% More Yield: Indoor Pot Grow Advice*
BY ERIK BIKSA · SAT NOV 09, 2013

RSS
“Those big, light-blocking leaves on my pot plants, should I pluck them off so the rest of the plant gets more light and air?"

Most growers think that removing one or two big leaves is okay, especially since removal of the large ones allows other parts of the plant to produce bigger sticky buds. But then again, those big home-grown solar panels are gathering energy for the plant. Removing them is like cutting off a source of energy for growth.

Recently, while visiting one of the more skilled growers I have met in my travels, I asked the secret for getting consistent quality and big yields from top to bottom on very-tall indoor plants. I was told that plucking leaves was key. Turns out the answer has more to do with when rather than yes or no.

With OG Kush crops, after about four weeks into the bud cycle, the growers almost completely defoliated the big, beautiful leafy plants. Seeing the before and after, I was a little shocked (“what are these guys smoking?”): Big, healthy bushes stripped to sticks with just a few fan leaves, but with all of the budding sites intact. 

Yet, when they showed me a section that had been treated this way and was now ready to harvest, it became clear that there was a method to what appears as madness.

Not all strains will respond favorably to this method, but all of the tested Kush strains and indica-dominant strains responded very well, sometimes giving up to 30% more yield. Seriously. Some Sativa hybrids respond well too, although they typically need to have fewer fan leaves removed. When in doubt, test a plant or two before subjecting a whole crop to any kind of plucking.






*Why Does Plucking Work? Here's The Deal:*

In nature, by the fourth week of bloom, cannabis plants are not likely to have a full rack of fan leaves intact. They are persistently leafy only when grown indoors, because of the favorable conditions and high level of nutrition that marijuana growers provide crops.

In a natural setting the lower leaves are exhausted of their nutrient reserves, which have been channelled by the plant into the budding sites. The leaves drop off on their own, especially as nitrogen becomes depleted in the soil.

By the fourth week of bloom in a nine-week budding cycle, Kush and Indica dominant plants don't really seem to use those fan leaves anyway, even when indoors. Growers needn't worry about nutrient reserves; there's plenty available right at the roots.

By removing the big leaves, the canopy opens and breathes a second wind into the crop.

Because more light reaches all parts of the plant and humidity isn't trapped in the canopy, you will see bigger, harder and frostier nugs at harvest time. Buds swell up almost overnight, because the roots can now channel more juice into buds and there is no foliage to rob the bud of fluid.

Do pluck all at once: not a little here and there. While it does shock the plant, healthy plants recover virtually overnight; especially if you follow up with a feeding of vitamins and trace minerals (post-surgery feeding).

Also note that plucking one or two leaves off in veg to open up the canopy isn’t a bad idea either; but save the major pull for after all the budding sites have formed.

Tough love can be hard at first; but when you see the results you won't look back.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 9, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Thanks for showing your intelligence, ROFLMFAO


Any other stupid comebacks???


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> Hello its me again, I chimed in on the subject not long ago. A fan of trimming the lower branches. And in my case it is definatly the way to go.
> Now take in mind These are bottomless pots, with roots that can go into the ground, they only get sun from high in the sky, and they don't get much wind because of all the thick trees surrounding them. But now that they leaned over from the heavy rains you can see how I trim off the lower branches while it was growing up and even took out some inner growth.
> No I don't have any clones grown side by side and fed exactly the same, but I did grow in this spot without trimming and it is way better to do it. (my growing situation makes it essential) But will always be a fan of trimming up the scraggly shit on the bottoms and inside.
> I know doer is going to say NUH-UH, but I do believe you will get the same yield as long as you stop trimming by the first week of flower.View attachment 3269839


I like your post but i think you over lolly popped those a little bitski :/


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

Doer said:


> Technique is not science, and science is not technique.
> 
> Please make a note.


So theres science for ya, control, observation, action, observation, hypothesis. ~ninja
*Science* (from Latin _scientia_, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3][4] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. ~wiki

Doer........your really making yourself out to look like an UB minion with only half your brain turned on. Ahem....please note the name of the thread, then read above post. 

Although my rooms stay as clean as a lab 95% of the time, alas they are not one. But in those rooms i conduct scientific experiments. I observe the behaviors of my plants and i run tests on them, then i evaluate the test results and continue testing. How is that not science? If i wore a white coat and carried a clip board would you consider it science then?
I have done what some consider smart and others consider stupid to my plants and realized the consequences first hand. Some good and others bad, but the point is that i did it. And now i know, making me a better scientist. 
Right now im running a test on this crop to see how it affects my production. Im running grow geared nutrients until i switch to tea for the last three weeks. 
My observations so far are showing that i have retained more healthy green leaves than the last run. And they are really dark green. This is making me really optimistic for my gpw stat this time around. 
Im not sure, your opinion of my lollypoping may be skewed slightly. My plants in no way at all look like that example just posted. My trimming is nothing like that charlie brown christmas tree posted above. My branches are nearly to the ground on my indy. Ive hollowed out the center of my one indica dom strain because the bud is crap in there. Its still covered in dense leave growth. They look like beach balls and about the same size. The only thing taken off is the first set of branches which dont give shit anyway and touch the ground sometimes giving another pathway for bugs, and the totally blacked out premature bud forming center of the plant. There is no massive leaf or branch losses occurring on my plants. The most vigorous lollypoping i do is to a tall wide bushy ak strain i run which gets an imaginary line drawn and everything under 25-30 % of the bottom is eliminated. This has made top growth much better and its an easy one to see since the plant is spread out well so i keep doing it. That strain is the only one that gets it hard, all the others are just what some would call plant maintenance. Strange branches that are in the center and go nowhere and are short are removed, along with bud sites that i know wont produce a useable product. For the most part my plants look like they havent even been messed with but i do take a little off the bottom for many reasons. Its the applied science that works for me.

And you, Ben, and caretaker, enough yelling already. Ya wanna convince me to never cut a leaf off then tell me some stories about your science. You know how sick i am of hearing two sides of an argument yell "wheres your published weed science" back and fourth at each other. Nobody has it and its a cop out post...like i have nothing to say or relevant stories for or against the argument. Its like shitting wrong, nobody likes that.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## Doer (Oct 9, 2014)

No one has yelled at you, yet. Maybe your mom should.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

Doer said:


> No one has yelled at you, yet. Maybe your mom should.


Yet another cop out post. Should we change the thread to boreing comebacks that have nothing to do with growing and show your IQ?


----------



## Doer (Oct 9, 2014)

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
_noun_
noun: *scientific method*; plural noun: *scientific methods*

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and *modification of hypotheses.*

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method
...principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and *testing of hypotheses *

*




*













Observation and analysis is not even 1/2 way.

There are books and college courses, about what is and is not science.

You may call yourself whatever, however.



If you are not trying to destroy your own hypothesis with controlled experiments to prove yourself wrong, it ain't science, baby.


----------



## Doer (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Yet another cop out post. Should we change the thread to boreing comebacks that have nothing to do with growing and show your IQ?


You are just arguing so I sting like a butterfly, float like a bee. So what? Does this seem like yelling to you, oh child of science?


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

Doer said:


> sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
> _noun_
> noun: *scientific method*; plural noun: *scientific methods*
> 
> ...


I just posted a definition of science, now you are too. Nice work, you receive five points for your extra hard work on finding charts to go along with the explanation. Lol. You do realize all those charts for the scientific method are different.......right? You planned that right?
Ok so lets go through your chart together shall we...lets do chart one.

1. Ask a question - is there a way to make my ak plant produce bigger nugs?
2. Research existing sources - smash through rollitup files on plant manipulation 
3. Formulate a hypothesis - if i trim the bottom buds off, according to some members, the top buds will become larger.
4. Design and conduct a study - i will grow the ak again, but lolly pop it.
5. Draw conclusions - the researcher noticed larger top cola production and an overall increase in size of buds
6. Report results - thats why im here, it works and im posting my conclusions on this site.

= science now?


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

Cannasutraorganics said:


> Any other stupid comebacks???


You cut and pasted some dudes OPINION, AND it took you forever to find it, STFU jerkoff


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> I just posted a definition of science, now you are too. Nice work, you receive five points for your extra hard work on finding charts to go along with the explanation. Lol. You do realize all those charts for the scientific method are different.......right? You planned that right?
> Ok so lets go through your chart together shall we...lets do chart one.
> 
> 1. Ask a question - is there a way to make my ak plant produce bigger nugs?
> ...


Or wait....no its not true science. Someone may have come into the room and tampered with the buds by injecting them with bulkeners. Or aliens, aliens made the buds bigger....every time


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> You cut and pasted some dudes OPINION, AND it took you forever to find it, STFU jerkoff


LOUD NOISES! Lol i agree, it was opinion and one sided, but it doesnt mean that its wrong. It may be totally right even if it is an opinion. Opinions arent wrong inherently.


----------



## DCobeen (Oct 9, 2014)

Okay okay I will run 2 plants of C99 after this harvest. i will take clones that are the same in nodes/height ect. I will veg then sam amount of time to make sure they are both healthy and grow the same. I will then up pot them and start a side by side grow to see. I have to know if there is a difference and what they are.

Edit: I will do 2 diff strains so we know its not strain specific. Ghost and C99 will be the strains.
oh here is my c99 right now last pic was 26 days on 12/12


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> LOUD NOISES! Lol i agree, it was opinion and one sided, but it doesnt mean that its wrong. It may be totally right even if it is an opinion. Opinions arent wrong inherently.


right, As was said before, look at the TITLE of the thread


----------



## hydroMD (Oct 9, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> not being able to form a sentence takes it all away in my book, especially when you sit there and type that you think you're more intelligent than the rest. Talk out LMFAO.


Try removing the broomstick irritating your colon. Its one thing if someone is butchering sentences that come off as completely unreadable, its another if someone is simply typing on a smart phone and hit a wrong key. If you cannot decioher a word when one letter is off your gonna have a hard run at life.


Spelling has zero to do with substance, as long as the substance can be interpreted. All you are is a grammar nazi that doesnt posess the knowledge to debate using valid points that pertain to the subject. Ppl like you dropping their whole stance on a debate to poibt out someones grammar on a cannabis forum is ridiculous!!! STFU!!!! Your dumb


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

I have an unpruned plant running right now. Hasnt been touched. Right next to quite a bunch of her sisters that all came from the same plant, about a month out. Ill post the harvest weight with bud size pictures. I totally forgot i had one untrimmed until DC mentioned side by side. Not science?


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

hydroMD said:


> Try removing the broomstick irritating your colon. Its one thing if someone is butchering sentences that come off as completely unreadable, its another if someone is simply typing on a smart phone and hit a wrong key. If you cannot decioher a word when one letter is off your gonna have a hard run at life.
> 
> 
> Spelling has zero to do with substance, as long as the substance can be interpreted. All you are is a grammar nazi that doesnt posess the knowledge to debate using valid points that pertain to the subject. Ppl like you dropping their whole stance on a debate to poibt out someones grammar on a cannabis forum is ridiculous!!! STFU!!!! *Your dumb*


Taking over a week to comeback is as weak as your grammar,just saying

AND IT"S YOU'RE DUMB, Fucking idiot,lmfao


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

hydroMD said:


> Try removing the broomstick irritating your colon. Its one thing if someone is butchering sentences that come off as completely unreadable, its another if someone is simply typing on a smart phone and hit a wrong key. If you cannot decioher a word when one letter is off your gonna have a hard run at life.
> 
> 
> Spelling has zero to do with substance, as long as the substance can be interpreted. All you are is a grammar nazi that doesnt posess the knowledge to debate using valid points that pertain to the subject. Ppl like you dropping their whole stance on a debate to poibt out someones grammar on a cannabis forum is ridiculous!!! STFU!!!! Your dumb


Very funny post, grammar nazis make me laugh too. There are some good points ^^^ here lol


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Taking over a week to comeback is as weak as your grammar,just saying
> 
> AND IT"S YOU'RE DUMB, Fucking idiot,lmfao


This is ironically funny too


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> This is ironically funny too


Right, can't blame that on his phone


----------



## hydroMD (Oct 9, 2014)

RambleOnRose said:


> First... I am not anywhere near as experienced as you are as a horticulturist.. so please.. go easy on me. I am here to learn, not fight.
> 
> I have seen something that leads me to believe you are wrong, UB. The thing is, I have always agreed with what you say. I'm curious if what I have seen and what you know can co exist?
> 
> ...


100% fact. Dominance does switch to lower branches if they recieve more light. Any branch that was dominant and grows out of light will lose its dominance to a branch getting better light. 

Nature 101: those with the best chance get 1st priority.


However if a top loses dominance too late in flower, you lose a lot of time while the hormones change amd nutrient priority has re routed.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Right, can't blame that on his phone


I shouldnt be laughing but i am....quietly. But yes. Fuck i have to go garden. Ill be back in a couple hours to keep this thread alive until someone posts some science


----------



## hydroMD (Oct 9, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Taking over a week to comeback is as weak as your grammar,just saying
> 
> AND IT"S YOU'RE DUMB, Fucking idiot,lmfao


Yes... the fact that forming a comeback was not on my list of priorities means im an idiot!! 


Or I have a life, and a garden of fire to attend to...

Hmmmm


----------



## hydroMD (Oct 9, 2014)

Ps, (i"ts you're) is not correct. You hipocrytical r tard.


Go troll a grammar nerd forum beezy, if i wanna learn to type error free on a 2" screen ill hit you up. But this is a place for people who have tue talent to priduce high quality meds.... you sir do not belong here


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

hydroMD said:


> Ps, (i"ts you're) is not correct. You hipocrytical r tard.
> 
> 
> Go troll a grammar nerd forum beezy, if i wanna learn to type error free on a 2" screen ill hit you up. But this is a place for people who have tue talent to priduce high quality meds.... you sir do not belong here


BWAHAHA


----------



## hydroMD (Oct 9, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> BWAHAHA


Not even a little bit. I do however enjoy watching your idiocracy unfold the more you type though. 

I see no journals or anything so you probably dont even grow.. just smoke and troll


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

hydroMD said:


> Not even a little bit. I do however enjoy watching your idiocracy unfold the more you type though.
> 
> I see no journals or anything so you probably dont even grow.. just smoke and troll


Yeah, I don't grow, you got me. I can tell your fingers where shaking when you typed that. It's ok bro, calm down.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

hydroMD said:


> *Ps, (i"ts you're) is not correct. You hipocrytical r tard.*


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

I'm Sorry sir, But *YOU ARE DUMB!!!!*


----------



## hydroMD (Oct 9, 2014)

I was referring to the ( " ) in It"s.
Apparently it only matters when other people have typos..


If your gonna come on here and pretend grammar is a huge deal to you, atleast double check your own posts! Im done with you. Go back under your bridge.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 9, 2014)

hydroMD said:


> I was referring to the ( " ) in It"s.
> Apparently it only matters when other people have typos..
> 
> 
> If your gonna come on here and pretend grammar is a huge deal to you, atleast double check your own posts! Im done with you. Go back under your bridge.


----------



## Doer (Oct 9, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> I just posted a definition of science, now you are too. Nice work, you receive five points for your extra hard work on finding charts to go along with the explanation. Lol. You do realize all those charts for the scientific method are different.......right? You planned that right?
> Ok so lets go through your chart together shall we...lets do chart one.
> 
> 1. Ask a question - is there a way to make my ak plant produce bigger nugs?
> ...


OK, sorry, I was actually working...weird.

Ahhem...

1- ask a yes or no question. "any way to" is a bit broad.
-------Let us say it this way. Are bigger buds possible, with this stain in Ninja's setup.
2 - research ways to increase Yield, and to define "nug", (entire cola?, what subidvision of cola, etc?) define "bigger" (weight, girth, etc) and think real hard how to come up with a yes/no test that will prove you wrong. Very important.
3. correct. Define "bottom" define "top."
4. incorrect. Grow two identical clones at the same time and rotate them under the light to equal every thing.
5. no conclusion possible without 4.
6. nothing to report but a fulfilled pre-conception, a superstition perhaps.

While your preliminary finding is indeed, compelling, it still needs the due diligence of the Method above, ie # 4, to rinse it of any, shall we say, irrational exuberance. 

Those charts are all the same. There is just various level of detail. But the main idea, is Yes/No. And the experiment is not designed to prove or support the hypothesis. Very important in your mind, that you are trying to shred that hypothesis in your experiment. You want that to not waste any time, and give a real answer that the hypothesis is WRONG. If you can't do that, by carefully defining, measuring weighing.. and you made the control and the test only differ by your pruning, then what you are left with is obviously RIGHT. That is Science.

You can do it and I will believe you and applaud you for being rigorous..


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

Doer said:


> OK, sorry, I was actually working...weird.
> 
> Ahhem...
> 
> ...


Well ill go see if i can get some pictures of my pruning later. Not pruned vs pruned. And we can see if the bud sites are actually producing larger flowers or not. Im not out to lie to ya, this is supposed to guide growers right? And id rather have a stonger community through real proof than a community of folk lore spreaders just like youd like. For now i have a dead chicken on the cutting board and im making dinner


----------



## hydroMD (Oct 9, 2014)

Doer said:


> OK, sorry, I was actually working...weird.
> 
> Ahhem...
> 
> ...


Wattage as well as distance from vegetation is also key in this debate. A 1000 penetrates about 12" of canopy with an optimal spectrum, however there are still some wavelengths that penetrate through leaf matter and reach lower levels. 

A 600W or 400W light has less penetration, and i feel would be a better bulb to supply results for this type of side by side for a few reasons;

1. If your growing two plants under a 1000w, chances are there is going to be a lot of excess light that penetrates down to the suckers of the un-lollipopped girl. 

2. The basis of the experiment is to detirmine If and how energy is dispersed through the plant barring light:leaf ratio. If your pumping 120 watts per sq foot, the lumens will pass through the canopy supplying the suckers with their own energy to motabolise nutrients. A more controlled case study might include two plants with no excess light, or even a sub optimal wattage . It would more accurately depict an impact on yield, bud structure and affects on potency.


Variables that still need considered;

1. Timing of sucker removal (s)
2. Amount of material to be taken from plant
3. # of nodes before lollipoo
4. Nodes to be left post lolli


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 9, 2014)

Any other stupid hearsay?


----------



## a mongo frog (Oct 9, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Any other stupid hearsay?


just your usual crap. thats about it though.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

Ahh, bens here just in time for chicken.....good


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

Ok, on the left, trimmed out plant that shows Indica traits. On the right the same plant not trimmed out. You can already see the size difference.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

The trimming job on the left plant


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

The untrimmed plant on the right.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 9, 2014)

Heres another of both of them. As you can see theres larger bud growth on the left plant and it also seems to have stretched more than its untrimmed sister. Both are in seven gallon smart pots and both get the same feed and water. The lollypopping is minimal but the differance is substantial. So i cant wait until this observation is dubbed erroneous because for some reason it isnt real.


----------



## Doer (Oct 9, 2014)

Fake Fake, yo mama!! Nah, just kidding.  Really it all looks like good ganja to me. Good grow.

That, being said, I do see the difference. And it does LOOK bigger. But, at the end of the day and weighed down to the bowl sized stemless morsel, does the un-pruned side yield more?. So, Apple = Looks, Oranges = Yield.

OTH, I'm not really sure, I would called that lollipopping, either, as you have mentioned.

IAC< isn't the experiment about did you dis-prove you could get bigger colas? No. You got bigger colas and only changed one variable but didn't have real tight controls.....still.

... your hypothesis stands, for you, after one run. Science!


----------



## Thecouchlock (Oct 10, 2014)

I got banned for calling someone an asshole for spreading misinformation, that's about as much bullshit as you can get.

Fuck the system, the moderators can lick my ass if they don't realize that misinformation makes this forum suck dirty cunt.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 10, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> View attachment 3270760 Ok, on the left, trimmed out plant that shows Indica traits. On the right the same plant not trimmed out. You can already see the size difference.


Perhaps, but even if I (or you) did based on some cherry picked small area of a garden with a photo angle down the row as opposed to directly overhead which will make the subject up front appear bigger..... it might be because:

1. You have an expectation based a belief system that there will be positive results contrary to botanical facts,

2. You have assumed incorrectly, that popcorn buds sometimes found at lower levels are directly related to light levels/intensity,

3. You have developed one or more *hypotheses,* or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon.

You are not using nor do you understand a scientific approach as has been pointed out. It's all conjecture, hearsay, and seeing what you want to see.

_*"4.1 Principles of experimentation*_

Almost all experiments involve the three basic principles, _viz_., randomization, replication and local control. These three principles are, in a way, complementary to each other in trying to increase the accuracy of the experiment and to provide a valid test of significance, retaining at the same time the distinctive features of their roles in any experiment"
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6831E/X6831E07.htm


Uncle Ben


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 10, 2014)

Here is a short but concise course in Experimental Design:
http://www.compuhigh.com/experimentdesign.html


----------



## PetFlora (Oct 10, 2014)

My $0.02

Any light has a certain max penetration, beyond which is pop corn

As plants stretch during flower, unless they've been well controlled, the main stalk will stretch as well

My reveg went from nothing above the surface to > 12", none of which gets light

I employ a cube set up to open up the middle of my plants to get more light deeper, but big leafs fill it in. 

Controlled Defol for the win

I would post a couple pics but File Uploader not working again.

You can see them in my multispectrum or DIY Mini-Me threads


----------



## Doer (Oct 10, 2014)

PetFlora said:


> My $0.02
> 
> Any light has a certain max penetration, beyond which is pop corn
> 
> ...



Did you note the thread title? What is all this?

Beyond here, be popcorn?

Well controlled against main stalk stretch?

..for a win?

What a joke!


----------



## Doer (Oct 10, 2014)

Thecouchlock said:


> I got banned for calling someone an asshole for spreading misinformation, that's about as much bullshit as you can get.
> 
> Fuck the system, the moderators can lick my ass if they don't realize that misinformation makes this forum suck dirty cunt.


Well, then, ban you then.


----------



## PetFlora (Oct 10, 2014)

Doer said:


> Did you note the thread title? What is all this?
> 
> Beyond here, be popcorn?
> 
> ...



Guess I wasn't crystal, I also remove fan leafs judiciously, almost none by harvest time


----------



## Thecouchlock (Oct 10, 2014)

Doer said:


> Well, then, ban you then.


Bastards only ban the good names, ban me again for good measure


----------



## Doer (Oct 10, 2014)

I completely agree


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 10, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> I like your post but i think you over lolly popped those a little bitski :/


If you saw the location I grow you would understand...I literally have 10 ft walls of trees all around and its pretty pointless to keep the lower shit. Actually a good way to think about it is Im growing in the bottom of a 10 ft shaft or hole. Im on a mission to get that direct sunlight. Ive been working on widening out, but I NEED to get tall and lose the lower growth. Had a lot of nice sunny days and a good feeding schedual so when the heavy rains finally came they couldn't hold up the fat colas with there unexercised branches. And I guess my bottomless pot idea didn't help me much on that.
Im going to get more evidence for the case, Ive got a few at home that get bad sunlight because I planted them too close. I did quite a bit of lower trimming BUT I did miss a few, so ill try to get a couple shots of how measly the lower stuff is. and how much better the trimmed stuff is. I know it wont prove anything, but I will show you guys anyways.


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 10, 2014)

Got the pictoral evidence. Nothing proven, besides the neatness and using the nutes and water for the bigger branches. From the front it looks like one big plant because of poor planning, Then 3 pics of the main stems all trimmed up. If I left these the branches would be about as thick as a shoelace and nuggets would total to maybe a half ounce. Not worth it to me. And Your honor, I believe the potted one shows some evidence for my theory, nothing side by side but this is just a 2 gal pot. And again the lower buds would have just been a waste of my nutes/water And I think weight wise it will do just as good as if I left them, just less time sitting and trimming.
Just some things to keep in mind, these too only get limited sun. Unlike my high in the sky babes, these only get good sun in the morning. then its real patchy. Took the wider shot from the east were most of the sun is soaked up. I try to let the ones getting good light thrive and trim the scraggly stuff during veg. I rest my case, nothing really proven.

*and yes that fat nugget in your face (top right corner area of 5th pic) is on the end of that skinny ass branch on the back one that's super trimmed.


----------



## Pepe le skunk (Oct 10, 2014)

Recommend not wasting your time as this section has been hyjacked by Uncle Ben, Chuck Estevez and his follower Doer.
If you look at their post history you will see few pictures of their gardens if any. Could be the same ip address as chuck and Ben might be the same person with two accounts. 

Facts:
Uncle Ben is not an employee at a dispensary.
He is not at the forefront of research in indoor growing of cannabis.
He is not doing large volume growing of cannabis indoors. 
He has not written *his method of growing* indoors to increase yield and harvest the biggest most desired buds from a plant.
He does know how to grow trees and vines outdoors because he works at a garden center and has hours a day to post on a website.
He purposly spreads false information and trolls this section.

Here is what he says doesn't work.
Pruning and or lollypopping to increase desired large buds at the top of the canopy for maximum bud size while minimizing low branch larf.

He claims no pruning is necessary and you will have better results with higher yields from not lollypopping and pruning.
If this is not a claim you are making then what is your suggested grow method indoors because I have not seen it written anywhere. 

Here is your chance to set the record straight Uncle Ben. 
Tell us how to grow indoors and produce the biggest yield with the largest buds and smallest amount of larf. 
Include overall plant size when done, container size to use and expected yield per container per 1000 Watt light.

Any one want to bet he does not answer the question?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 10, 2014)

I aint telling you shit Pepe. Go back to a dozen forums I've posted to over 15 years and find out for yourself who I am and what I've done. Sorry son, but you're not even in the same league.

Here's your chance to stop acting like some disrespectful, smart ass, snot nosed fool.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 10, 2014)

bud nugbong said:


> Got the pictoral evidence. Nothing proven, besides the neatness and using the nutes and water for the bigger branches. From the front it looks like one big plant because of poor planning, Then 3 pics of the main stems all trimmed up. If I left these the branches would be about as thick as a shoelace and nuggets would total to maybe a half ounce. Not worth it to me. And Your honor, I believe the potted one shows some evidence for my theory, nothing side by side but this is just a 2 gal pot. And again the lower buds would have just been a waste of my nutes/water And I think weight wise it will do just as good as if I left them, just less time sitting and trimming.
> Just some things to keep in mind, these too only get limited sun. Unlike my high in the sky babes, these only get good sun in the morning. then its real patchy. Took the wider shot from the east were most of the sun is soaked up. I try to let the ones getting good light thrive and trim the scraggly stuff during veg. I rest my case, nothing really proven.
> 
> *and yes that fat nugget in your face (top right corner area of 5th pic) is on the end of that skinny ass branch on the back one that's super trimmed.


I also grow "in a hole" and my plants don't look like that. They are fuller with fat green leaves all the way to the ground and the yields are high. You have not mastered something. Whatever it is or a combination thereof I don't have a clue.


----------



## Sativied (Oct 10, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> You have not mastered something. Whatever it is or a combination thereof I don't have a clue.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 10, 2014)

Doer said:


> Really it all looks like good ganja to me. Good grow.


thanks man. this grow is staying super green thanks to using the grow fertilizer through flower. they still have a long way to go but they've put on some nice weight so far.
i know that one side by side isn't the most definitive proof in the entire world, but it is one example and it does support the lolly popping theory and what I've been saying. The buds in the pictures are clearly larger on the lolly popped plant and its not like i knew this debate was going to happen and purposely made the plants do that. It was a random over sight that happened to become relevant. 
As for the science part...the only way i could see further proving it to be an advantage would be to grow more plants to compare a whole row of trimmed vs. a whole row of untrimmed. And id love to do it but thats like agreeing to have something you like stolen from you. Id love to do two AKs next to each other so you can see that but thats my favorite strain. who knows, i might have to though to put this argument to rest. 
As for lolly popping like some do.......i cringe. But with a really packed trellis its necessary to remove all that junk under there. It is really bad weed, and theres no need to grow it. After all, the plant only has the resources to grow a certain amount of flowers and id rather it be the flowers that will develop the best to take that energy. 
For now I'm satisfied with my work and with my pruning, that seems to be working as the pictures show.

I've said what i needed to, given pictures as evidence, theres not much more that i can do to prove that under cutting is an effective tool for producing the best quality medicine available. So you guys can have the thread back to trash on it again.......CAAAAAAAR!!!!.............................GAME ON!!!!!!!!


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 10, 2014)

Pepe le skunk said:


> Recommend not wasting your time as this section has been hyjacked by Uncle Ben, Chuck Estevez and his follower Doer.
> If you look at their post history you will see few pictures of their gardens if any. Could be the same ip address as chuck and Ben might be the same person with two accounts.
> 
> Facts:
> ...


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 10, 2014)

Pepe le skunk said:


> Recommend not wasting your time as this section has been hyjacked by Uncle Ben, Chuck Estevez and his follower Doer.
> If you look at their post history you will see few pictures of their gardens if any. Could be the same ip address as chuck and Ben might be the same person with two accounts.
> 
> Facts:
> ...


Thats funny that he did just what you said he would  like you had him on puppet strings  And now that you mention it, the only plant I've ever seen from ben is a horrible looking sativa in a wheelbarrow that looked like the worst weed I've ever seen in my life. the plant was grown nicely and looked healthy but it really looked like some landrace schwag.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 10, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> thanks man. *this grow is staying super green thanks to using the grow fertilizer through flower*. they still have a long way to go but they've put on some nice weight so far.
> i know that one side by side isn't the most definitive proof in the entire world, but it is one example and it does support the lolly popping theory and what I've been saying. The buds in the pictures are clearly larger on the lolly popped plant and its not like i knew this debate was going to happen and purposely made the plants do that. It was a random over sight that happened to become relevant.
> As for the science part...the only way i could see further proving it to be an advantage would be to grow more plants to compare a whole row of trimmed vs. a whole row of untrimmed. And id love to do it but thats like agreeing to have something you like stolen from you. Id love to do two AKs next to each other so you can see that but thats my favorite strain. who knows, i might have to though to put this argument to rest.
> As for lolly popping like some do.......i cringe. But with a really packed trellis its necessary to remove all that junk under there. It is really bad weed, and theres no need to grow it. After all, the plant only has the resources to grow a certain amount of flowers and id rather it be the flowers that will develop the best to take that energy.
> ...


Where did you learn that????????????????


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 10, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Perhaps, but even if I (or you) did based on some cherry picked small area of a garden with a photo angle down the row as opposed to directly overhead which will make the subject up front appear bigger..... it might be because:
> 
> 1. You have an expectation based a belief system that there will be positive results contrary to botanical facts,
> 
> ...


seeing what i want to see? taking pictures to make buds look bigger? they're pictures you blubbering fool, you can't fake a picture, what the fuck are you talking about? look at them. They can't lie because they can't talk or type. They are 100% fact, you know what facts are right? Those things you refuse to believe


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 10, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Where did you learn that????????????????


from a friend of mine named Ricky Bobby, and i talked to heartland hank about it back in the day, HH taught me about lolly popping and showed me how to do it. Really nice guy, i miss that dude.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 10, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> from a friend of mine named Ricky Bobby, and i talked to heartland hank about it back in the day, HH taught me about lolly popping and showed me how to do it. Really nice guy, i miss that dude.


Heartland learned about using only grow nutes from UB I believe. I could be wrong, But I think I remember that. It could have been ricky bobby, He also recommends some shake and bake in your soil.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 10, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Heartland learned about using only grow nutes from UB I believe. I could be wrong, But I think I remember that. It could have been ricky bobby, He also recommends some shake and bake in your soil.


lmfao, yea that fucker Ricky Bobby! I gave him some clones and that donkey fluffer grew them bigger than mine which were the same damn age. So in the spirit of if your not first your last, I bought the same nutrients he uses, and better lights and ballasts


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 10, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> lmfao, yea that fucker Ricky Bobby! I gave him some clones and that donkey fluffer grew them bigger than mine which were the same damn age. So in the spirit of if your not first your last, I bought the same nutrients he uses, and better lights and ballasts


He went in my room when I wasn't home and put his Balls on my plants


----------



## a mongo frog (Oct 10, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> seeing what i want to see? taking pictures to make buds look bigger? they're pictures you blubbering fool, you can't fake a picture, what the fuck are you talking about? look at them. They can't lie because they can't talk or type. They are 100% fact, you know what facts are right? Those things you refuse to believe


he's never had a medical grow before from what i understand. never had his meds in a dispensary from what i also understand. you heard how angry he got when a few post back he blew up in anger. he can't show you eveidence of if one doesn't lollipop your flowers will be better. he's fucking angry inside man. such a sad thing to see. I've prayed for him but its not working. he need more prayer, mine alone is not helping.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 10, 2014)

a mongo frog said:


> he's never had a medical grow before from what i understand. never had his meds in a dispensary from what i also understand. you heard how angry he got when a few post back he blew up in anger. he can't show you eveidence of if one doesn't lollipop your flowers will be better. he's fucking angry inside man. such a sad thing to see. I've prayed for him but its not working. he need more prayer, mine alone is not helping.


Just throwing this out there. Since when did dispensary workers become experts on Weed? That's like saying the teenager at mcdonalds is an expert on hamburgers. Also, we all know that dispensaries don't always have the best bud and the customers will believe anything. You call it a good enough name and they will buy some nasty shwag. As far as UB's anger, that's on him. carry on


----------



## a mongo frog (Oct 10, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Just throwing this out there. Since when did dispensary workers become experts on Weed? That's like saying the teenager at mcdonalds is an expert on hamburgers. Also, we all know that dispensaries don't always have the best bud and the customers will believe anything. You call it a good enough name and they will buy some nasty shwag. As far as UB's anger, that's on him. carry on


good points i know what your saying. there is some very fine meds at the dispensaries in california. you guys know that.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 10, 2014)

a mongo frog said:


> good points i know what your saying. *there is some very fine meds at the dispensaries in california*. you guys know that.


 Ya, MINE,lol


----------



## a mongo frog (Oct 10, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Ya, MINE,lol


exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 10, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> from a friend of mine named Ricky Bobby, and i talked to heartland hank about it back in the day, HH taught me about lolly popping and showed me how to do it. Really nice guy, i miss that dude.


Hey NinjaBowler. Hope all is well with you brother.

I remove the lower bud sites of some plants in flower, but not the leaves attached to them. I do not remove any fan leaves, ever.
Also, it depends on the genetics.. for example, my Green Crack, I will remove quite a few lower bud sites.. I also remove the lowest branches that will not break the canopy, I do that in veg.. I will remove bud sites along the lower branches (but leave the leaves) to encourage those lower branches to really take off and break the canopy. I stop doing this by the end of wk 2. I think yield is not hurt, I think. I believe that the very small amount of photosynthesis that is lost (due to the small leaves on little lower bud sites being removed) does not hurt my yield much. But, I believe that I am losing some of the plants ability to produce photosynthesis, as small as it is..

My Killing Fields plant though... no need to remove any bud sites.. this plant is fantastic about maturing evenly and producing highly marketable buds.. whether it is at the top with tons of light or a couple inches off of the soil line and heavily shaded. They are all the same density, smell, taste, everything. No leaves removed on this plant either.

Basically, I think my method of "lollipopping" works well with productive branching type plants.. like Skunk, Green Crack, Sweet Tooth... those productive branching type plants.. 

I think removing bud sites can be a valuable tool. But I also believe that when you remove green from the plant you are taking away its ability to perform photosynthesis. So I leave the leaves attached to the node but carefully cut out the bud site with a razor blade or just pinch it out with my fingers.

I have tons of respect for UB.. I have learned more from UB than any other person on these MJ sites. I consider UB to be a master of botany, and a friend.
If UB says my technique with GC is hurting my yields, then I would believe him. If I remember right, he once told me that since I leave the leaves attached to the bud site on the plant that the harm is minimal. Something like that.. I could be wrong though.

If I ever told you remove a leaf then I apologize, I lead you wrong. I'm still learning this game myself. There was a short time that I did remove the leaf attached to the bud site. But that was before we ever talked.. I think I was hurting my plants ability to fill the canopy, produce buds, everything.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 10, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Hey NinjaBowler. Hope all is well with you brother.
> 
> I remove the lower bud sites of some plants in flower, but not the leaves attached to them. I do not remove any fan leaves, ever.
> Also, it depends on the genetics.. for example, my Green Crack, I will remove quite a few lower bud sites.. I also remove the lowest branches that will not break the canopy, I do that in veg.. I will remove bud sites along the lower branches (but leave the leaves) to encourage those lower branches to really take off and break the canopy. I stop doing this by the end of wk 2. I think yield is not hurt, I think. I believe that the very small amount of photosynthesis that is lost (due to the small leaves on little lower bud sitesbeing removed) does not hurt my yield much. But, I agree that I am losing some of the plants ability to produce photosynthesis, as small as it is..
> ...


I actually really like that idea. Thats an amazing idea, and one that i would gladly try and put to the test. Good to see you again brother and thanks for the advice in the past.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 10, 2014)

its the best of both worlds. Theres fireworks going off in my head as we speak. Im very excited to try this technique.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 10, 2014)

I lollipop and defoliate. I know I get more yield and bigger buds. Every strain is different. Some you take as early as 20 days and other all the way till 40 days. If new to this and have a room of them, do them at different times to figure out which way is best. That's all I did. And still do for every new strain I do. 
This is Sunset Sherbet.


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I also grow "in a hole" and my plants don't look like that. They are fuller with fat green leaves all the way to the ground and the yields are high. You have not mastered something. Whatever it is or a combination thereof I don't have a clue.


you talk a lot, I havnt seen shit


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Thats funny that he did just what you said he would  like you had him on puppet strings  And now that you mention it, the only plant I've ever seen from ben is a horrible looking sativa in a wheelbarrow that looked like the worst weed I've ever seen in my life. the plant was grown nicely and looked healthy but it really looked like some landrace schwag.


You are like most noobs who have been sucked into the big cola mutt hype with some cute name that sucks in the kids, never grown a real sativa and wouldn't know what to do with it if you did, and certainly haven't grown outdoors. If you had any outdoors growing experience you wouldn't be trumpeting some stupid forum paradigm about popcorn buds presenting themselves because of a lack of light....you'd know better. You'd also garnish my respect. 

Again, my red sig applies to the T.

Speaking of your attempt at Snootie Pot Nirvana I also have posted quite a few pictures of outdoor grown TFD O. Haze, 7' tall plants. Where have you been, hanging out with the other dimwitted bros? And for the record, the O. Haze that I grew is the real haze, not some sucker bet knockoff with indica that is not true to form. You tell me what the original Haze was. What's the genetic makeup of the real Haze?

Uncle Ben


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> .... and i talked to heartland hank about it back in the day, HH taught me about lolly popping and showed me how to do it. Really nice guy, i miss that dude.


Really? Do I have to raise the BULLSHIT flag again? Being that I know him personally, hosted him on my farm, I'm going to email him at the Riddle site (where all the "gurus" moved to) and verify what you say. And for the record, Heartland Hank is the ONLY cannabis forum member that has met me personally. Here's just part of the banter between us at my Riddle home my thread called "Plants and Stuff". Hmmmm, I see where I need to respond to his new post.....

HH:
_"Thanks again for everything I had a damn good time, learned a whole lot. You gave me some ideas with the horticulture biz that I would have NEVER thought of. I am anxious to get my first box of Cypress starts.. I'll get you that Tequila list from the in laws.. I'll be seeing them this wknd.

Let's do that again soon, at your convenience. . If you need a hand with anything don't hesitate. I am happy to do even the roughest work just for the experience.. Learn a thing or two.._

_It was great to meet you.. Good to know you're not only a horticulture guru, but a damn good guy too. Opening up your place like that to me.. was the highlight of my summer. Also an inspiration to step it up, work harder towards my goals, maybe have a place like that of my own some day."_





Me: _ "Hank, I too had a good time. "Highlight of your summer" is pretty strong. Thanks man!




Yeah, we'll do it again. BTW, reason why you saw little fruit hanging in the greenhouse was because of the really weird long winter. What should have bloomed, didn't. Next year.... Forgot to show you the plumerias. "_

Along with about a thousand pots, Bonzi, Forbid 4F, Keyplex, Hank got Dalat beans. Those are pure sativa from Vietnam just in case someone is not familiar with them.

Speaking of Dalat, gonna call this schwag too? I'll take the time to educate you. This is what all pure sativas look like, including mine. I gifted Cruz at the Riddle site with Dalat beans and other rare goodies, and here's shots Oct. 2. It outgrew his greenhouse and is now growing outdoors in a pot - 8' tall.





^ That is the flowering structure of sativas. I also recently posted photos of Zamal I grew. Same structure.

Uncle Ben


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> from a friend of mine named Ricky Bobby,


Estevez was being sarcastic LOL.


----------



## Hydroburn (Oct 11, 2014)

skip to 5:20... it is well known indoors that the lower nugs need supplemental lighting or they turn out fluffy/shitty. It doesn't matter how old you are, how many pounds of potatos you can grow, or how many Ed Rosenthal books you have from 1970.... you cannot fuck with math (light spread/fall off).

"...every thousand watts of under-lighting I add, I get about another 1 pound of weight, and I don't have to lollipop."


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

This is the kind of bullshit that pushes the Uncle Ben Anger Button:



bud nugbong said:


> you talk a lot, I havnt seen shit


Sounds like a personal problem to me. Been posting gardens for 15 years, and that includes at Troll-It-Up. As I've said before, where you have you been?


----------



## Hydroburn (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Speaking of Dalat, gonna call this schwag too? I'll take the time to educate you. This is what all pure sativas look like, including mine. I gifted Cruz at the Riddle site with Dalat beans and other rare goodies, and here's shots Oct. 2. It outgrew his greenhouse and is now growing outdoors in a pot - 8' tall.
> 
> View attachment 3271667
> 
> ...


I hope you are going to help your buddy trim that lower mess.


----------



## Hydroburn (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> This is the kind of bullshit that pushes the Uncle Ben Anger Button:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a personal problem to me. Been posting gardens for 15 years, and that includes at Troll-It-Up. As I've said before, where you have you been?


sorry, grapes and shit don't count


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Basically, I think my method of "lollipopping" works well with productive branching type plants.. like Skunk, Green Crack, _Sweet Tooth._.. those productive branching type plants.


In the first post of this thread, the bottom 3 plants are Sweetooth. https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/ They were crammed in such the NO light could reach the lower levels. And look at those lower levels. Some of the nugget collections are wider than the main cola! 



> If I ever told you remove a leaf then I apologize, I lead you wrong. I'm still learning this game myself. There was a short time that I did remove the leaf attached to the bud site. But that was before we ever talked.. I think I was hurting my plants ability to fill the canopy, produce buds, everything.


It's just simple botany - not hearsay, conjecture, seeing what we want to see.

Good luck,
Tio

P.S. - I see the village troll is out, the official wacked out Uncle Ben stalker.


----------



## Hydroburn (Oct 11, 2014)

holy shit, lollipopping werkz outdoor too??? This guy is growing 16 foot trees for charity.
28:20

"...something I have severely missed the dock on is cleaning out all these suckers sucking up the energy."


----------



## Hydroburn (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> P.S. - I see the village troll is out, the official wacked out Uncle Ben stalker.


call it trolling if you want, but in topic with the thread title, I posted evidence from real growers in the real world growing real shit and pulling real weight right now. Nothing you have ever said or posted is in-line with, or carries half the merit of, modern professional growers. New growers that try to emulate your grows from your college days are missing out, but not my problem.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Like Obama, you're a fuck up.



Hydroburn said:


> Nothing you have ever said or posted is in-line with, or carries half the merit of, modern professional growers. New growers that try to emulate your grows from your college days are missing out, but not my problem.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

Hydroburn said:


> call it trolling if you want, but in topic with the thread title, I posted evidence from real growers in the real world growing real shit and pulling real weight right now. Nothing you have ever said or posted is in-line with, or carries half the merit of, modern professional growers. New growers that try to emulate your grows from your college days are missing out, *but not my problem*.


How funny that it's not your problem, YET, still posting 17 pgs in, Hunting down weednerd and other videos and talking shit to UB HMM. seems like it has you all wrapped up.


----------



## Hydroburn (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> How funny that it's not your problem, YET, still posting 17 pgs in, Hunting down weednerd and other videos and talking shit to UB HMM. seems like it has you all wrapped up.


except I am just chilling at my computer on a beautiful saturday morning vaping weed and got a little pussy. no need to hunt down shit, I've already seen it and subscribe to them. you pretty much follow UB around here like cat shit stuck in fur so not sure why you chimed in.


----------



## Hydroburn (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Like Obama, you're a fuck up.


Are you implying that lower trash is impressive and should be left alone? No offense to your hero, but those plants need work.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

It is also funny that he chooses subcools video to use. Now let's look at this, sub says, He thinks they need to be fed, they tell him, pull all this off, its sucking up all the nutrients. WELL, if you have a TREE like he does, It is going to need A LOT of food, if sub's supersoil isn't supplying enough food for the plant, their solution is to cut off some of the plant so it doesn't need more food, FUCKING GENIUS SOLUTION. When a person grows up into an adult and needs more food, you simply don't just eat more, you chop off your legs so you don't need as much food, now you're living right.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

Hydroburn said:


> except I am just chilling at my computer on a beautiful saturday morning vaping weed and got a little pussy. no need to hunt down shit, I've already seen it and subscribe to them. you pretty much follow UB around here like cat shit stuck in fur so not sure why you chimed in.


Sorry, bro, Seems it is you following UB around. I'm only here to point out your mistakes


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> It is also funny that he chooses subcools video to use. Now let's look at this, sub says, He thinks they need to be fed, they tell him, pull all this off, its sucking up all the nutrients. *WELL, if you have a TREE like he does, It is going to need A LOT of food, if sub's supersoil isn't supplying enough food for the plant, their solution is to cut off some of the plant so it doesn't need more food, FUCKING GENIUS SOLUTION.* When a person grows up into an adult and needs more food, you simply don't just eat more, you chop off your legs so you don't need as much food, now you're living right.


Laughable! Stupid is stupid does.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Sorry, bro, Seems it is you following UB around. I'm only here to point out your mistakes


This guy is another one of those wacked out obsessed internet stalkers I have had from time to time. They hang on and can't let go.

I own them.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Where did you learn that????????????????


That's what I do too. I get 16-16-16 Sea Grow and only change the concentration. In Ebb and Flow or Dry Hydro, the plant will choose her feed of the day and let the other stuff drain back.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> Tjhat';s what I do too. I get 16-16-16 Sea Grow and only change the concentration. In Ebb and Flow or Dry Hydro, they plant will choose her feed or the day and let the other stuff drain back.


I have a friend that tried a few powdered brands and ended up with the grow more. He uses the 20-20-20 and the hardener and another one. Probably more than he needs, But I think he spends about $40 for a 25 lb bag of each


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> Tjhat';s what I do too. I get 16-16-16 Sea Grow and only change the concentration. In Ebb and Flow or Dry Hydro, they plant will choose her feed or the day and let the other stuff drain back.


So true, good on ya!

Homebrewer and I had this conversation. He basically had the salts in his reservoir tested from time to time via a lab to see what the plants were removing. That is the way you become a master gardener and he surely is such. It's all about horticulture....botany does not change. A more revealing approach would be leaf petiole analysis but with cannabis it might be a tough call regarding security.

UB


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

First NInja you have to standardize and control the experiment. And that would include wieghing all the material you took off. That is how you define lollibpoping, I'd say.

I am not sure what you do, I would call lollypop. iac, EXPERIMENTS HAVE BEEN DONE.

Here is just one example. Just search google images for lollypop cannabis experiments.

"my twins lollipop experiment
clones from my unknown med No.2
both got the same exact regiment from day one
when flowering started one was lollipop'd and the other was left untouched
1L pot; 8 weeks (two in flowering), about 70cm/2ft tall"
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=243100&page=3







Really, if you do this and I have, the difference in low cola yield is amazing. Don't throw away buds and make a straggly, uhealthly looking plant like the one on the right.



Oh, this will yield. NOT


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> I have a friend that tried a few powdered brands and ended up with the grow more. He uses the 20-20-20 and the hardener and another one. Probably more than he needs, But I think he spends about $40 for a 25 lb bag of each


Riddle is really into applying sulfur, amber trichome harvesting triggers on certain sativas and now a new Peters "finishing" food called AquaGold. This would make a great foliar feed IMO.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Riddle is really into applying sulfur, amber trichome harvesting triggers on certain sativas and now a new Peters "finishing" food called AquaGold. This would make a great foliar feed IMO.


Yeah, I was using just the Dyna FP, then went to the citrus feed because of the higher sulfur,per your guys recommendations. seeing great results, People don't believe I only use veg nutes.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Yeah, I was using just the Dyna FP, then went to the citrus feed because of the higher sulfur,per your guys recommendations. seeing great results, People don't believe I only use veg nutes.


Oh, you use only vegetable for your nutrition. Do you eat eggs?  Jiskiddin

Bloom nutes, what a crock. These are not even blooms, they are bracts.

And hops vines are never lollypopped. No medicine plant I know of is grown for looks, save ganja.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Nice job Doer. Goes without saying...the defoliated plant on the right is stunted.

duh......


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Hydroburn said:


> call it trolling if you want, but in topic with the thread title, I posted evidence from real growers in the real world growing real shit and pulling real weight right now. Nothing you have ever said or posted is in-line with, or carries half the merit of, modern professional growers. New growers that try to emulate your grows from your college days are missing out, but not my problem.


No experiments. Some guy nattering about missing the boat.

Note the thread title, please.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Like Obama, you're a fuck up.


Yeah, and Jorge should know and we should listen.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> Yeah, and Jorge should know and we should listen.


But, but....Jorge is not one of THE "modern professional growers" (snort snort).


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> In the first post of this thread, the bottom 3 plants are Sweetooth. https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/ They were crammed in such the NO light could reach the lower levels. And look at those lower levels. Some of the nugget collections are wider than the main cola!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey UB.. Yeah, I agree with you. I do not at all think that popcorn is caused by lower light levels... Not one bit..
I have some plants that produce really nice lower buds (not popcorn).. even when crammed in 1 per sq ft, barely getting any light at all.. Then I have plants (like my green crack, skunk and sweet tooth 1.1) that will put out lots of popcorn.. even when the plants didn't quite fill the canopy and light is reaching down there more than usual.
That leads me to believe that it is a genetic thing.. but, that's just a guess.


I don't know anything about "energy".. I don't think that low light levels cause the popcorn.. I just remove some of those lower bud sites as they never get big enough to trim and I just end up knocking them all to hell with my watering wand anyway..

Also, I have gone back and forth between thinking that removing lower bud sites (but never leaves attached) increase the size of the other bud sites/buds..

It has been a while since I took part in one of these threads.. while I am here anyway.. I am curious what you think about all of this ^ UB..

I trust/value your opinion.. it would be very helpful.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

*I got this from another forum,*
The reason that people like Jorge Cervantes say that defoliation isn't worth it, is that they almost always grow in the same style, and the way they grow, defoliation doesn't do any good. They pack in a bunch of plants and put 1000 watters over them. The light is so intense that even with all of the fan leaves, the lower buds still get adequate light. Because of this, the amount of stress caused by defoliating doesn't amount to enough gains to be worth doing. What they don't understand is that not everyone grows this way, and if you have a lot less light, then the stress caused by defoliating could definitely be worth it to get light to the lower bud-sites and get a more developed structure.

Pretty much sums up what I always say, If your lower bud isn't getting enough light, Get a better light, don't yank the sugar factories off.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> But, but....Jorge is not one of THE "modern professional growers".


No, not one of. THE MAIN  And what I like, is he does the work, to talk the talk.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Here is a guy that is being talked into plant rape on ICmag. But, he really has a good grow with some minor problems.

First comment:
Some of those large fans you have are ridiculous and *not doing much for your plants* now. I have never seen fans with such long stems?






Now this is the valuable comment.

248 pages (on this topic) and *not one side by side*. hmmmm you ever wonder why? lol I bet the non-touched one would smoke the skinned plant in veg and yield more at the end
__________________


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> *I got this from another forum,*
> The reason that people like Jorge Cervantes say that defoliation isn't worth it, is that they almost always grow in the same style, and the way they grow, defoliation doesn't do any good. They pack in a bunch of plants and put 1000 watters over them. The light is so intense that even with all of the fan leaves, the lower buds still get adequate light. Because of this, the amount of stress caused by defoliating doesn't amount to enough gains to be worth doing. What they don't understand is that not everyone grows this way, and if you have a lot less light, then the stress caused by defoliating could definitely be worth it to get light to the lower bud-sites and get a more developed structure.
> 
> Pretty much sums up what I always say, If your lower bud isn't getting enough light, Get a better light, don't yank the sugar factories off.





Uncle Ben said:


> In the first post of this thread, the bottom 3 plants are Sweetooth. https://www.rollitup.org/t/no-lower-budsites-do-not-need-light-to-develop-get-educated.829061/ They were crammed in such the NO light could reach the lower levels. And look at those lower levels. Some of the nugget collections are wider than the main cola!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



God Damn, UB! That is a fucking beautiful plant..

I love sweet tooth.. it is a phenomenal plant.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

I lollipop my plants and it works for me... Theyre crammed in my closet and not much light gets to the bottom at all so all the lower fans yellow and die off so i just lollipop it all after the stretch. Whatever u find suits ur grow best, there is no right or wrong, people will believe what they want


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> Oh, you use only vegetable for your nutrition. Do you eat eggs?  Jiskiddin
> 
> Bloom nutes, what a crock. These are not even blooms, they are bracts.
> 
> And hops vines are never lollypopped. No medicine plant I know of is grown for looks, save ganja.


I picked up a bottle of DG Bloom recently and tried mixing it in with the flowering cycle..
I only used a little bit.. and only when the plants were already super green.. I so no improvement..

I have about half a bottle left and doubt I will use it. Veg nutes from seed to smoke is my style, for sure.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Hey UB.. Yeah, I agree with you. I do not at all think that popcorn is caused by lower light levels... Not one bit..
> I have some plants that produce really nice lower buds (not popcorn).. even when crammed in 1 per sq ft, barely getting any light at all.. Then I have plants (like my green crack, skunk and sweet tooth 1.1) that will put out lots of popcorn.. even when the plants didn't quite fill the canopy and light is reaching down there more than usual.
> That leads me to believe that it is a genetic thing.. but, that's just a guess.
> 
> ...


We're singing from the same sheet of music.

Welcome back!


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> View attachment 3271750 View attachment 3271751 I lollipop my plants and it works for me... Theyre crammed in my closet and not much light gets to the bottom at all so all the lower fans yellow and die off so i just lollipop it all after the stretch. Whatever u find suits ur grow best, there is no right or wrong, people will believe what they want


In science, right or wrong have to nothing to do with it. We are after facts proven by Method, not conjecture and superstition.

You are assuming PAR does not reach those bottom fans and you are WRONG about that fact.

But, you just wanted to show your bud porn.  That's OK. I thank you for that.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> We're singing from the same sheet of music.
> 
> Welcome back!


Good deal..

For real though.. those Sweet Tooth pics are fucking great man.. I've seen the avatar one, obviously, but seeing it full size and seeing those others.. wow, you can DEFINITELY throw down indoors.

I am doing a journal for someone here on RIU, but, I can't hang out here too much.. THis place brings the ornery out of me.. BAD!!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> *I got this from another forum,*
> The reason that people like Jorge Cervantes say that defoliation isn't worth it, is that they almost always grow in the same style, and the way they grow, defoliation doesn't do any good. They pack in a bunch of plants and put 1000 watters over them. The light is so intense that even with all of the fan leaves, the lower buds still get adequate light. Because of this, the amount of stress caused by defoliating doesn't amount to enough gains to be worth doing. What they don't understand is that not everyone grows this way, and if you have a lot less light, then the stress caused by defoliating could definitely be worth it to get light to the lower bud-sites and get a more developed structure.
> 
> Pretty much sums up what I always say, If your lower bud isn't getting enough light, Get a better light, don't yank the sugar factories off.


OK, but explain my Sweettooth and other plants that I linked to that don't get ANY light but still produced these huge chunky nuggets. Growing style doesn't have a thing to do with it in my experience. I've had popcorn buds on outdoor grown plants and big chunky nuggets on indoor grown which suggests to me that TexasHank might be on to something.

Tio


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> In science, right or wrong have to nothing to do with it. We are after facts proven my Method, not conjecture and superstition.
> 
> You are assuming PAR does not reach those bottom fan and you are WRONG about that fact.
> 
> But, you just wanted to show your bud porn.  That's OK. I thank you for that.


Well everything on the bottom doesnt amount to much in my setup, thats just how it is, you could hit me with all the scientific hoopla u want but my eyes dont lie, and neither do my plants. Im not assuming anything, if u can see the leaves then they are getting light obviously, but in my style of growing it works better for me to cut some of the lower growth off, helps with air circulation, less shit to trim, and not having to deal with little fluffy bullshit nuggs that arent even worth smoking


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> OK, but explain my Sweettooth and other plants that I linked to that don't get ANY light but still produced these huge chunky nuggets. Growing style doesn't have a thing to do with it in my experience. I've had popcorn buds on outdoor grown plants and big chunky nuggets on indoor grown which suggests to me that TexasHank might be on to something.
> 
> Tio


Yeah, that is just someone else's opinion. I have scrawny Real og's that just naturally have very little leaf and the lower nugs never get huge,even though they receive plenty of light.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> Here is a guy that is being talked into plant rape on ICmag. But, he really has a good grow with some minor problems.
> 
> First comment:
> Some of those large fans you have are ridiculous and *not doing much for your plants* now. I have never seen fans with such long stems?


Do these pinheads ever THINK? I mean, has he ever considered that the long petioles are like the long arms, solar panels that stick out on the international space to collect photons in the most effective manner possible?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> View attachment 3271750 View attachment 3271751 I lollipop my plants and it works for me... Theyre crammed in my closet and not much light gets to the bottom at all so all the lower fans yellow and die off so i just lollipop it all after the stretch. Whatever u find suits ur grow best, there is no right or wrong, people will believe what they want


You have a nutritional issue, has nothing to do with light.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Well everything on the bottom doesnt amount to much in my setup, thats just how it is, you could hit me with all the scientific hoopla u want but my eyes dont lie, and neither do my plants. Im not assuming anything, if u can see the leaves then they are getting light obviously, but in my style of growing it works better for me to cut some of the lower growth off, helps with air circulation, *less shit to trim, and not having to deal with little fluffy bullshit nuggs that arent even worth smoking*


 Isn't that what it really comes down to? you don't like the looks and you don't want to trim it. Anything that is LARF in my grow goes into making wax, so, All that Isn't wasted in my garden. Especially when I'm paying top dollar for electricity.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> You are like most noobs who have been sucked into the big cola mutt hype with some cute name that sucks in the kids, never grown a real sativa and wouldn't know what to do with it if you did, and certainly haven't grown outdoors. If you had any outdoors growing experience you wouldn't be trumpeting some stupid forum paradigm about popcorn buds presenting themselves because of a lack of light....you'd know better. You'd also garnish my respect.
> 
> Again, my red sig applies to the T.
> 
> ...


Your right, ive never grown a straight sativa. Nor would i want to. That thing looks like an ornimental pot plant. Grown more for show than to actually consume. Those genetics died in marketability decades ago. Only you would dig them back up, throw on a bandana and crank up the music. The THC content is probably so low on that landrace sativa that you can smoke thumb sized joints. I can barely smoke more than two hits of my "new school" weed and im lights out.
It doesnt surprise me that your bragging about some weed that you used to smoke back in vietnam though. That was your generation, cool, i get it. Weve come a long way with marijuana breeding since then though. Nobody wants haze anymore, they want kushes and weed that tastes like cherries or blueberries. Medical patients have a choice these days on what kind of pot theyd like instead of whats the only thing around. And that "big cola mutt hype" you speak of is what drives the industry that you sit on the sidelines of and curse at it for its new strains and alien growing practices.
Ben if you would have taken the time to read my posts youd know that im not a fan of extream lolly popping. I dont butcher my plants, i hate seeing savagely mutilated plants and i am a fan of keeping as many fan leaves on as possible. I just trim a little bush off in the centers and call it good because thats where the bad pot grows in an indoor grow, and to me your only as good as the bag of weed your holding, and id like to be just a little better than the next guy.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Your right, ive never grown a straight sativa. Nor would i want to.


But you ridicule those who are up to the challenge to grow what most consider the ultimate high?

.......I give up.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Do these pinheads ever THINK? I mean, has he ever considered that the long petioles are like the long arms, solar panels that stick out on the international space to collect photons in the most effective manner possible?


It's really this simple.. leaves are good for your plant.

Yeah, that is just silly..


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> You have a nutritional issue, has nothing to do with light.


Its only the very lower parts of my plants that are crammed together, i mean like really crammed, everything else is green and healthy as can be, havent had any yellowing or anything since lollipopping weeks ago. Everything is copacetic


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Well everything on the bottom doesnt amount to much in my setup, thats just how it is, you could hit me with all the scientific hoopla u want but my eyes dont lie, and neither do my plants. Im not assuming anything, if u can see the leaves then they are getting light obviously, but in my style of growing it works better for me to cut some of the lower growth off, helps with air circulation, less shit to trim, and not having to deal with little fluffy bullshit nuggs that arent even worth smoking


Eyes lie, the mind imposes patterns that are not there. We have science to counter your superstition.
You have a scale. It will beat your eyeball every time.

Check the thread title.

I post side by side experiments.

The bottom nugs are often stronger and I do smoke those. 

Power up your fans and add side lights, increase your yield and live forever, Samuari.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> Eyes lie, the mind imposes patterns that are not there. We have science to counter your superstition.
> You have a scale. It will beat your eyeball every time.
> 
> Check the thread title.
> ...


Exactly my point, i dont have the space to add more lights n then battle with temps. So in turn i strip off the bottom bullshit, not here to argue with anyone, im sure most of you have plenty more experience than me, im just sharing what works for me. Happy growing to everyone.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> is really this simple.. leaves are good for your plants.


Of course they are. The plant is not stupid. Some of the RIU guys, though, seem pretty woolly headed.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Your right, ive never grown a straight sativa. Nor would i want to. That thing looks like an ornimental pot plant. Grown more for show than to actually consume. Those genetics died in marketability decades ago. *Only you would dig them back up, throw on a bandana and crank up the music*. The THC content is probably so low on that landrace sativa that you can smoke thumb sized joints. I can barely smoke more than two hits of my "new school" weed and im lights out.
> It doesnt surprise me that your bragging about some weed that you used to smoke back in vietnam though. That was your generation, cool, i get it. Weve come a long way with marijuana breeding since then though. Nobody wants haze anymore, they want kushes and weed that tastes like cherries or blueberries. Medical patients have a choice these days on what kind of pot theyd like instead of whats the only thing around. And that "big cola mutt hype" you speak of is what drives the industry that you sit on the sidelines of and curse at it for its new strains and alien growing practices.
> Ben if you would have taken the time to read my posts youd know that im not a fan of extream lolly popping. I dont butcher my plants, i hate seeing savagely mutilated plants and i am a fan of keeping as many fan leaves on as possible. I just trim a little bush off in the centers and call it good because thats where the bad pot grows in an indoor grow, and to me your only as good as the bag of weed your holding, and id like to be just a little better than the next guy.


Having met UB.. I really like this picture.. UB puts on his baddest bandana and cranks the tunes.. crosses his arms and over looks his Dalat plants...

That made my day..

In all seriousness though.. there are many of us who are thrilled to get some old school sativa genetics. UB is not alone in appreciation for a real deal sativa, not even close.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Exactly my point, i dont have the space to add more lights n then battle with temps. So in turn i strip off the bottom bullshit, not here to argue with anyone, im sure most of you have plenty more experience than me, im just sharing what works for me. Happy growing to everyone.


Well your grow is your grow, but this is a science thread.

The question is if the yield will increase if you do not "strip the bullshit" (oh your girls must love that attitude) You simply don't know. What works for you is not the subject at hand, alas.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> I picked up a bottle of DG Bloom recently and tried mixing it in with the flowering cycle..
> I only used a little bit.. and only when the plants were already super green.. I so no improvement..


Homebrewer who knows all about experimental design and control did such a journal regarding NPK values. He compared the final weight using a high N food from start to finish on clones, DG's Foliage Pro, 9-3-6...... and DG's Grow, 7-9-5. He had the pix as the garden progressed until harvest and the final bud weights. The high N Fo Pro produced 10% more according to him. The leaves were a productive dark green color, no leaf losses, which means more chlorophyll producing carbos and such,

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Having met UB.. I really like this picture.. UB puts on his baddest bandana and cranks the tunes.. crosses his arms and over looks his Dalat plants...
> 
> That made my day..
> 
> In all seriousness though.. there are many of us who are thrilled to get some old school sativa genetics. UB is not alone in appreciation for a real deal sativa, not even close.


Heartland Hank, is that you?


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> Well your grow is your grow, but this is a science thread.
> 
> The question is if the yield will increase if you do not "strip the bullshit" (oh your girls must love that attitude) You simply don't know. What works for you is not the subject at hand, alas.


so then whats the answer buddy? I wanna see some pi charts and graphs, a control and a variable, side by sides and then everything tried trimmed n thrown on a scale... Multiple times, until then ima do what works for me. And yea my bitches love my attitude, when im mad i tie them down and lock em in the closet... Oh wait did u mean my plants?


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Its only the very lower parts of my plants that are crammed together, i mean like really crammed, everything else is green and healthy as can be, havent had any yellowing or anything since lollipopping weeks ago. Everything is copacetic


If you have yellowing you need nitrogen and maybe sulfur. NO BLOOM FOOD. These are not Blooms.

IAC, if you strip it all off, how can you tell if light was the problem?

If you don't run the experiments in your space, how can you expect to contribute to the real knowledge?

Here is some science on under canopy, ie side lighting.

http://www.academia.edu/478882/Increasing_plant_productivity_in_closed_environments_with_inner_canopy_illumination


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Heartland Hank, is that you?


Yeah, sorry I thought you knew that..
I lost my HH name a while ago with a password change.. I can't remember for the life of me what I changed it to.. I was not coming around here too often and I just forgot it..

I've tried to get Admin to retrieve the password for me a few times, but it has not happened.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> If you have yellowing you need nitrogen and maybe sulfur. NO BLOOM FOOD. These are not Blooms.
> 
> IAC, if you strip it all off, how can you tell if light was the problem?
> 
> ...


Lol my man i feed my plants everything they need, nitrogen is not an issue, like i said, everything is healthy as can be and has been for weeks, the very bottom leaves where theres hardly any light were the only ones to yellow off and since stripping them, havent had a single leaf turn yellow on me.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> Well your grow is your grow, but this is a science thread.
> 
> The question is if the yield will increase if you do not "strip the bullshit" (oh your girls must love that attitude) You simply don't know. What works for you is not the subject at hand, alas.


I kind of needed a reminder that the mind will lead you wrong at times..

It is like one of my good friends says.. "A plant will prove your wrong, every time"..

I should really stop removing the lower bud sites on my popcorn producers and use it or hash.. I think the only thing it is doing for me is giving my head a sense of a job well done..

I think that since I leave the leaves attached to the site the harm is minimal, but, there is still harm, I believe.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Your right, ive never grown a straight sativa. Nor would i want to. That thing looks like an ornimental pot plant. Grown more for show than to actually consume. Those genetics died in marketability decades ago. Only you would dig them back up, throw on a bandana and crank up the music. The THC content is probably so low on that landrace sativa that you can smoke thumb sized joints. I can barely smoke more than two hits of my "new school" weed and im lights out.
> It doesnt surprise me that your bragging about some weed that you used to smoke back in vietnam though. That was your generation, cool, i get it. Weve come a long way with marijuana breeding since then though. Nobody wants haze anymore, they want kushes and weed that tastes like cherries or blueberries. Medical patients have a choice these days on what kind of pot theyd like instead of whats the only thing around. And that "big cola mutt hype" you speak of is what drives the industry that you sit on the sidelines of and curse at it for its new strains and alien growing practices.
> Ben if you would have taken the time to read my posts youd know that im not a fan of extream lolly popping. I dont butcher my plants, i hate seeing savagely mutilated plants and i am a fan of keeping as many fan leaves on as possible. I just trim a little bush off in the centers and call it good because thats where the bad pot grows in an indoor grow, and to me your only as good as the bag of weed your holding, and id like to be just a little better than the next guy.



And when the newschool MJ lines have all been bred into a corner of mutants.. you better hope someone still has some of these old school seeds..

I don't want to get on your bad side Ninjabowler. What you have with UB is between you two.. I try to stay neutral.. but, on the old school sat thing, I had to step up and say something..


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Here is a peer reviewed paper on trying to see if you can reduce tranperancy of leaves to PAR. on a certain plant important to the biosphere.

The fact is they are transparent and what could change that? Well excess UV-B will. So, that is how science works. 

https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=133518&fileOId=624376
Under elevated UV-B light green spots on leav
es became less transparent to PAR, which
is probably due to a structural change in the 
mesophyll, since the pigment content was not
affected.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 11, 2014)

Doer said:


> First NInja you have to standardize and control the experiment. And that would include wieghing all the material you took off. That is how you define lollibpoping, I'd say.
> 
> I am not sure what you do, I would call lollypop. iac, EXPERIMENTS HAVE BEEN DONE.
> 
> ...


Hahahaaa, i could have told ya that wouldnt work lol. And no, i dont do whats in those pictures, thats hilarious and just bad growing practice. I have several outdoor grows planned for next year and once again ill probably just trim out some of the center in the bottom and maybe take off a couple small hidden, and short branches. I think arguing with mr. All or nothing never touch a fan leaf or youll lose 40% off your yield has made me look like a plant butcher as well. Ive seen first hand what these people harvest and it isnt much, theres no way i ever want my plants to look like that either. What mr. All or nothing needs to realize is that its all about a happy medium for the best results.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> so then whats the answer buddy? I wanna see some pi charts and graphs, a control and a variable, side by sides and then everything tried trimmed n thrown on a scale... Multiple times, until then ima do what works for me. And yea my bitches love my attitude, when im mad i tie them down and lock em in the closet... Oh wait did u mean my plants?


The answer is up to you, not me. That scale work, with a control, repeated many times, is for you. I follow in the footsteps of the giants of botany, not the purveors of Myth. I an not out to prove anything. This is a science discussion and there are no proofs, only results of carefully laid experiments.

Your grow is unique. You can experiment, and tell us.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Hahahaaa, i could have told ya that wouldnt work lol. And no, i dont do whats in those pictures, thats hilarious and just bad growing practice. I have several outdoor grows planned for next year and once again ill probably just trim out some of the center in the bottom and maybe take off a couple small hidden, and short branches. I think arguing with mr. All or nothing never touch a fan leaf or youll lose 40% off your yield has made me look like a plant butcher as well. Ive seen first hand what these people harvest and it isnt much, theres no way i ever want my plants to look like that either. What mr. All or nothing needs to realize is that its all about a happy medium for the best results.


Well it is a good thing you have no idea what you are talking about, then. It is quite entertaining.
You are not lollypopping at all.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> And when the newschool MJ lines have all been bred into a corner of mutants.. you better hope someone still has some of these old school seeds..
> I had to step up and say something..


This is true but theres an abundance of these landrace seeds all over the world. Ive seen them in jamaica and africa first hand, ive never been to india or afghanistan, but im sure they have mountains of seeds there too. Right now id fucking kill for a bowl of some late 90s BC blueberry for breakfast


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Waste not want not.

A bit of nug will get you through times of no money better than money will get your through times of no nug.


----------



## Doer (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Lol my man i feed my plants everything they need, nitrogen is not an issue, like i said, everything is healthy as can be and has been for weeks, the very bottom leaves where theres hardly any light were the only ones to yellow off and since stripping them, havent had a single leaf turn yellow on me.


Do you really think, you see the same frequencies, as these plants? Do you even know about PAR?

And can you see under there? Sure. So there is plenty under PAR under there.

Do you know that nitrogen is a transportable element around the plant? Are you aware that the girl will drop those leaves when they are done? Don't you realize that is a natural part of maturing?

And even if the leaf is less green it is still contributing to the total photosynthesis or else IT WOULD NOT BE THERE.

You are not smarter than these plants.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Yeah, sorry I thought you knew that..
> I lost my HH name a while ago with a password change.. I can't remember for the life of me what I changed it to.. I was not coming around here too often and I just forgot it..
> 
> I've tried to get Admin to retrieve the password for me a few times, but it has not happened.


I hear ya. You don't know how many times I've tried to register at a new cannabis forum only to find someone has taken my handle, latest one being IC Mag.

How about that rain! And just in time for the wildflower seeds I sowed yesterday.  We got 2.24" as of 8:00. More after that.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Lol my man i feed my plants everything they need,


And what would that be? NPK values, amount per gallon, etc.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> But you ridicule those who are up to the challenge to grow what most consider the ultimate high?
> 
> .......I give up.


Its the marketability that fails those tired genetics. If your smoking it all or giving away at christmas or newyears parties then put the bandana on and crank up the music to it. But if you want to supply the dispensary down the street ya better have your ducks in a row, and the ducks they want. To some growing is a little more serious than "dude, i got this crazy sativa in my yard, lets smoke it!"


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Yeah, I have a kush plant that I do a two part harvest with and does REALLY well.. well, for an OG anyway.
It is simple.. cut off the top 2/3rds when you feel they are ready.. leave the bottom 3rd.. lower the lights.. run them for another 5-7 days.. harvest.

I get some real decent buds from that 2nd harvest.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Its the marketability that fails those tired genetics. If your smoking it all or giving away at christmas or newyears parties then put the bandana on and crank up the music to it. But if you want to supply the dispensary down the street ya better have your ducks in a row, and the ducks they want. To some growing is a little more serious than "dude, i got this crazy sativa in my yard, lets smoke it!"


I have produced both in the past.. In general.. the kiddos all want the stoney nugget and the 40+ crowd wants quality sativas/sativa hybrids..
Also, the kiddos want to SEE quality.. The 40+ want to FEEL the quality.

The kiddos rate weed by how many hits it takes them to pass out.. 40+ want a cerebral experience that does not sink them into the couch.

Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule.. This is a broad statement. I mostly deal with the 40+ crowd though. They have more money to spend, they buy in bulk, they are the people I work and hang out with anyway, they like the weed I like.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> I hear ya. You don't know how many times I've tried to register at a new cannabis forum only to find someone has taken my handle, latest one being IC Mag.
> 
> How about that rain! And just in time for the wildflower seeds I sowed yesterday.  We got 2.24" as of 8:00. More after that.


We get some nice over night rain.. kinda ruined my plans for the day, but, I'm not going to complain.

You got the wildflower seeds planted? Very nice. That is going to look great. I hope to see it in the future.
I liked the plans you sent me to get that done.. Pretty thorough.. they should have an excellent opportunity to really take off..

I have got to get the fuck out of this city and out somewhere with some space.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Yeah, I have a kush plant that I do a two part harvest with and does REALLY well.. well, for an OG anyway.
> It is simple.. cut off the top 2/3rds when you feel they are ready.. leave the bottom 3rd.. lower the lights.. run them for another 5-7 days.. harvest.
> 
> I get some real decent buds from that 2nd harvest.


Ha! I got crap from a second harvest once and decided to never do that again. Thats why i started taking the stuff off i dont want growing. I understand what your saying about the 40+ crowd though, but if you want to deal with those guys you have to know those guys. Id really only like to deal with one person. The guy behind the counter with the scale. Taker easy HH. The farms calling me again.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> And what would that be? NPK values, amount per gallon, etc.


Fox farms trio, calmag, cha ching, beastie blooms, and a 6" layer of super soil call recipe 420 fro eb stone


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

I prewater my plants for 10 seconds withtbhe sprayer hose in my sink then add the recommended feed to each gallon and give half a gallon to each plant


----------



## Sativied (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Fox farms *cha ching*


I bet that works well on GHS's Money Maker.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Hahahaaa, i could have told ya that wouldnt work lol. And no, i dont do whats in those pictures, thats hilarious and just bad growing practice. I have several outdoor grows planned for next year and once again ill probably just trim out some of the center in the bottom and maybe take off a couple small hidden, and short branches. I think arguing with mr. All or nothing never touch a fan leaf or youll lose 40% off your yield has made me look like a plant butcher as well. Ive seen first hand what these people harvest and it isnt much, theres no way i ever want my plants to look like that either. What mr. All or nothing needs to realize is that its all about a happy medium for the best results.


I have also removed some center bud sites on plants..

In Cervantes Grow Bible he has the picture of a cannabis plant, no leaves, just the branching..
He shows how you can remove grow sites from a branch, the lowest sites on the branch, and that will encourage the tip of the branch to grow faster.
Or, you can pinch out the growth tip and it will encourage those lower growth sites to grow faster.
He uses a small red line to mark where to cut.. maybe someone remembers it.. I can never find it. I have looked many times.

When I remove a bud site in the center of the plant this is what I have in mind.. I want that branch to grow taller.. so I remove sites (before the stretch) to encourage that branch to grow taller.

I like really tall side branching. When I really nail it you can barely tell a difference between most of the side branching and the main terminal.. but no topping was involved.

When I remove lower growth on the lowest branches I also have this in mind.. I want to see that lowest branch catch up and top out to just a few inches below the terminal. Some times I really nail it..
Sweet Tooth, Green Crack, Skunk plants.. these are the plants that I have had the most success with doing this. They just fill space so nicely.

I am just playing around some times.. Who knows if yields are improved or hurt..


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

Sativied said:


> I bet that works well on GHS's Money Maker.


?


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> This is true but theres an abundance of these landrace seeds all over the world. Ive seen them in jamaica and africa first hand, ive never been to india or afghanistan, but im sure they have mountains of seeds there too. Right now id fucking kill for a bowl of some late 90s BC blueberry for breakfast


I really enjoyed Chimera's blueberry X Grapefruit.. He used DJ Shorts B130 male pollen, I think it was.. That is one to watch out for if you really like a good blueberry.. I am not familiar with "BC blueberry" but I would think DJ Short/Chimera would be a good bet.

I have always wanted to try out PeakSeedsBC Blueberry..


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Yeah, I was using just the Dyna FP, then went to the citrus feed because of the higher sulfur,per your guys recommendations. seeing great results, People don't believe I only use veg nutes.


Hey Chuck.. I would like to try out this Citrus feed.. A few other people I talk shop with have done the same.

What have you seen between the two.. Fpro Vs Citrus feed?


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Hey Chuck.. I would like to try out this Citrus feed.. A few other people I talk shop with have done the same.
> 
> What have you seen between the two.. Fpro Vs Citrus feed?


Haven't seen a difference that I could pinpoint, i had a few bugs issues i just got rid of and a new gavita light. I am seeing my biggest yields with the new light and using the citrus. But, I always had good plants with the FP too.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Ha! I got crap from a second harvest once and decided to never do that again. Thats why i started taking the stuff off i dont want growing. I understand what your saying about the 40+ crowd though, but if you want to deal with those guys you have to know those guys. Id really only like to deal with one person. The guy behind the counter with the scale. Taker easy HH. The farms calling me again.


Yeah man.. good talking with you again.. have a good one

I bet like any technique it works better with some plants than others. My OG does really well with a 2 part harvest.. we were sitting around trimming it up a few wks ago and all chatting about how we liked what we were seeing with that technique, with that plant.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Haven't seen a difference that I could pinpoint, i had a few bugs issues i just got rid of and a new gavita light. I am seeing my biggest yields with the new light and using the citrus. But, I always had good plants with the FP too.


Ah, ok.. you say it has a little different formulation though? More sulfur?


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

citrus list 4.9% combined sulfer. FP label doesn't say. checking the web to see if I can find it.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

combined sulfates for FP are 1.01% that I can see, I am no chemist though

http://sunlightsupply.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/product/719000_MSDS.pdf


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

I will have to give it a try..


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> We get some nice over night rain.. kinda ruined my plans for the day, but, I'm not going to complain.
> 
> You got the wildflower seeds planted? Very nice. That is going to look great. I hope to see it in the future.
> I liked the plans you sent me to get that done.. Pretty thorough.. they should have an excellent opportunity to really take off..
> ...


Worked out well. Strip 5' wide by 600' long along the highway inside. Using the tractor - 6 passes with a chisel to bust it up, lots of passes with 3 pt. tiller which made a fine seedbed, 2 passes with mix of seeds and washed sand broadcast behind a lawn mower. Got real frickin' lucky - just as I turned around after the second pass went about 5' and ran out of the sand mix. From the road it will be striking. Pound each of bluebonnets and TX/OK mix - https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/wildseed/texasoklahomamix.html

I know quite a few people that are dieing to get out of Austin. Now's the time to do it. Call Capital Farm Credit for financial advice. They are great.

Good luck


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 11, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Yeah man.. good talking with you again.. have a good one
> 
> I bet like any technique it works better with some plants than others. My OG does really well with a 2 part harvest.. we were sitting around trimming it up a few wks ago and all chatting about how we liked what we were seeing with that technique, with that plant.


Mine looked much better visually but the high was just not there. I just dont have the time anymore to harvest twice these days lol, once takes long enough


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Indoors or out, I've always done a double harvest. Have recommended it as long as I recommended the 4 main cola drill, like 15 years. It adds up and like a few of us said, there is scientific data published by Mel Franks via U. of Miss. labs reflecting that lower buds are usually potent than the upper main cola. Kids have this fake visual obsession, witness the stupid looking AN labels.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> I prewater my plants for 10 seconds withtbhe sprayer hose in my sink then add the recommended feed to each gallon and give half a gallon to each plant


That's not what I asked. Never mind....


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> That's not what I asked. Never mind....


Yea i know, u asked for npk ratios but i already said what i feed with and if u know ur shit like u say u should be able to figure out the npk ratios on ur own if u really are curious


----------



## st0wandgrow (Oct 11, 2014)

Pepe le skunk said:


> Recommend not wasting your time as this section has been hyjacked by Uncle Ben, Chuck Estevez and his follower Doer.
> If you look at their post history you will see few pictures of their gardens if any. Could be the same ip address as chuck and Ben might be the same person with two accounts.
> 
> Facts:
> ...



I just think it's funny that he shats all over people for removing a few lower branches, yet he advocates chopping off the top 2/3'rds of the plant. lol.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Fox farms trio, calmag, cha ching, beastie blooms, and a 6" layer of super soil call recipe 420 fro eb stone


Wow, now aint that cool. Screw the NPK values and what's really important. We be using cool chit like cha ching, beastie blooms and a 6" layer of super soil.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 11, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Wow, now aint that cool. Screw the NPK values and what's really important. We got cool shit like cha ching, beastie blooms and a 6" layer of super soil LOL.


OH NO UB, NOT just super soil , BUT recipe 420, like it's made special for MJ, because as we all Know, MJ uses different nutes than every other plant in the world.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Pepe le skunk said:


> Facts:
> Uncle Ben is not an employee at a dispensary.
> He is not at the forefront of research in indoor growing of cannabis.
> He is not doing large volume growing of cannabis indoors.
> ...


LOL.. UB doesn't work at a garden center dude.. I would disagree that he is spreading false info as well, but, you definitely got that one wrong..


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 11, 2014)

Ninjabowler said:


> Mine looked much better visually but the high was just not there. I just dont have the time anymore to harvest twice these days lol, once takes long enough


Logistics, managing your own schedule, demands of your customer(s).. all these thing can make one persons convenient way of doing something a total nightmare for another.
I really have never noticed more than a slight difference in type of high and never a drop in potency with the 2nd harvest. but I can totally understand a technique not working for you due to the specifics of your situation and especially your schedule.

We all got our own shit going on..

That sucks it doesn't work for you though man as it has done me very well. I have seen increase in both marketability of lower buds and yield.. no legit experiments to confirm that but I do believe I have seen it..
Has worked better or some plants than others, ime.

Like say I have a total monoculture of og kush in my tent.. I probably would skip the 2 part harvest and just take it all at once. But lately I have been doing a tent with half og kush and half killing fields.. the KF takes 9-10 wks, the OG takes 8-9 wks.. So it works out just right.. 2 harvest sessions.. One is the OG tops and medium level, the 2nd is all the KF and the remainder of the OG.

You know what I am saying.. I also try to not make more work for myself.


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 12, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Logistics, managing your own schedule, demands of your customer(s).. all these thing can make one persons convenient way of doing something a total nightmare for another.
> I really have never noticed more than a slight difference in type of high and never a drop in potency with the 2nd harvest. but I can totally understand a technique not working for you due to the specifics of your situation and especially your schedule.
> 
> We all got our own shit going on..
> ...


Man that is exactly why i like you. Because you understand that there is no one perfect way to grow. We all strive for the best but perfection is unattainable. Keep up the good work buddy.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Wow, now aint that cool. Screw the NPK values and what's really important. We be using cool chit like cha ching, beastie blooms and a 6" layer of super soil.





chuck estevez said:


> OH NO UB, NOT just super soil , BUT recipe 420, like it's made special for MJ, because as we all Know, MJ uses different nutes than every other plant in the world.


Lmao yo im just sayin what im using if u wanna be immature and childish be my guest, u can go back to bed with uncle ben now hes been waitin for. The KY been ready for ya! Just one question, whos pitchin n whos receiving?


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

To me, it sounds like uncle ben is a miserable middle aged man wit a bullshit job and no future to look forward to so he comes on here to spread his misery


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

Correct me if im wrong...


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Lmao yo im just sayin what im using* if u wanna be immature and childish* be my guest, *u can go back to bed with uncle ben now hes been waitin for. The KY been ready for ya! Just one question, whos pitchin n whos receiving*?


thanks for showing how MATURE you are, *LMFAO*


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> To me, it sounds like uncle ben is a miserable middle aged man wit a bullshit job and no future to look forward to so he comes on here to spread his misery


you sound like a stupid punk kid with no clue how to grow weed, sitting in your room on saturday night sucking down cheetos and mt.dew trying to play with men on the internet. Careful you don't step on one of those leggos on your floor.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Correct me if im wrong...


You're wrong but you don't see the value of my questions. Your NPK values are the reason why you're losing your lower leaves. Now, if you can open your mind up a bit you might learn something from me. My heart is in the right place but if you get snarky or smart ass with me, I'll let you have it.

Read the following link. This is "old" school botanical logic, not some RIU bullshit.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/leaves-turning-black-outdoors.847319/

And cut the crap regarding mustering up an Uncle Ben gangbang, eh? Makes you look like a fool.

_Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain_


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Lmao yo im just sayin what im using if u wanna be immature and childish be my guest, u can go back to bed with uncle ben now hes been waitin for. The KY been ready for ya! Just one question, whos pitchin n whos receiving?


Ya, thats not going to win the argument for our side......just sayin, this is advanced growing. :/


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 12, 2014)

Yes, there is right and wrong and your cannabis specific foods (and hard head) are the culprits, witness yellowing leaves mid level in the first photo. AND, it's just gonna keep working its way up the plant unless you change your "methods of madness".

I looked at the NPK values of your foods and it confirmed what I suspected and the reason why I asked, not enough N. Of course I got a dodge and then a smart ass challenge. OK....here goes. You're gonna get a taste of good ol fashion Uncle Ben Schooling LOL.  Here you are doing the typical RIU finger pointing when you're finger is crooked....pointing at the wrong culprit - light.

0-50-30?????? Are you kidding me. Not to mention the outrageous cost for this stuff,1 lb. for $33 ugggggg. http://www.planetnatural.com/product/beastie-bloomz-soluble-fertilizer/ The high P will also increase your stretch. If you got money to burn how about giving some to charity, like the American Cancer Society?

I can buy a 25 lb. bag of top quality Peters for a bit more than that - $53 shipped. 2 bucks/pound. Here's what you should be using, from start to finish, or Citrus Feed..... and shit can the cannabis specific snake oils. http://www.amazon.com/77770-Petunia-Magnesium-Fertilizer-25-Pound/dp/B002HJGULU/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_1 Great analysis- http://www.jrpeters.com/Products/Jack-s-Professional/Jack-s-FeED/20-3-19-Petunia-FeED_/9749/How-To-Use.html

Might wanna read this, it directly applies to your methods of plant nutrition - https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-never-ending-abuse-of-phosphorous-bloom-foods-to-enhance-flowering.158144/

I'll post some photos of plants with dark green leaves, they got plenty of blood meal even during flowering, which actually increases lower nugget biomass contrary to RIU logic.









Popcorn for a second harvest:



Secondary harvest adds up. You lollipoppers are shit outa luck on this one. 



Uncle Ben


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> you sound like a stupid punk kid with no clue how to grow weed, sitting in your room on saturday night sucking down cheetos and mt.dew trying to play with men on the internet. Careful you don't step on one of those leggos on your floor.


Sorry to burst your bubble chuck but when i posted that i just got back from the bar it was 3:30 a.m where im at, and i am a punk kid i dont no shit from noone, but sorry i gotta go i actually have work ( a real job ) so u guys can sit on this website and piss away watever portion of ur life is left growin some plants and trolling the internets.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

And i think ive got a pretty sexy garden for some punk kid who cant grow weed


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble chuck but when i posted that i just got back from the bar it was 3:30 a.m where im at, and i am a punk kid i dont no shit from noone, but sorry i gotta go i actually have work ( a real job ) so u guys can sit on this website and piss away watever portion of ur life is left growin some plants and trolling the internets.


to bad you can't grow good enough weed that you didn't have to go to work at 7 am on sunday, SON!!!!

And YES, I will have fries with that, How many times do you hear that at your REAL job?


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> to bad you can't grow good enough weed that you didn't have to go to work at 7 am on sunday, SON!!!!
> 
> And YES, I will have fries with that, How many times do you hear that at your REAL job?


Im a union dock builder so not many


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> to bad you can't grow good enough weed that you didn't have to go to work at 7 am on sunday, SON!!!!
> 
> And YES, I will have fries with that, How many times do you hear that at your REAL job?


And it O.T homie have to go in if i dont want to but why would i pass up $72 an hour...


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Im a union dock builder so not many


Have fun WORKING on Sunday,here is what i'll be doing all day.

and I'm making $73 an hr while doing it


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Have fun WORKING on Sunday,here is what i'll be doing all day.


U do that... ill be laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

ayy estevezz, how bout (chuck)in this dick down ya throat?


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> U do that... ill be laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> ayy estevezz, how bout (chuck)in this dick down ya throat?


yeah, REAL mature there, boy.
what are you some fag, wanting another dude to suck you off,lmfao


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> yeah, REAL mature there, boy.
> what are you some fag, wanting another dude to suck you off,lmfao


You suckin my dick, that makes u the fag, fag.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> You suckin my dick, that makes u the fag, fag.


yeah, you're killing it son. Keep showing your maturity


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> yeah, you're killing it son. Keep showing your maturity


Well obviously u never seen harold n kumar escape or uda caught the reference


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Well obviously u never seen harold n kumar escape or uda caught the reference


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

Whenu go to work does uncle ben pack you a cockmeat sandwhich?


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Well obviously u never seen harold n kumar escape or uda caught the reference


Yeah, I don't have children, so i don't go to stupid kid movies


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck is chuck estevez wasnt such a lame-o


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Yeah, I don't have children, so i don't go to stupid kid movies


Lmao damn son go out derrr n get ya tip wet!


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Whenu go to work does uncle ben pack you a cockmeat sandwhich?


And getting more mature with every post. Maybe go ask your big bro for some help. you're not very good at this


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> How much wood could a wood chuck chuck is chuck estevez wasnt such a lame-o


Here is a little help, Boy

chuck rhymes with fuck,,go


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Here is a little help, Boy
> 
> chuck rhymes with fuck,,go


Yea it does, something uve obviously never done....


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Yea it does, something uve obviously never done....


let's go ask your mom and sister


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

Ur best buds are uncle ben and palmala handerson


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> let's go ask your mom and sister


Lmao nothintg says desperation like a momma joke, good one tho but my mom passed away 8 years ago from breast cancer so unless ur a necrophiliac i dont think u had any sexual realtions wit my mother.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

Ayy better late than never


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

And i respect uncle ben for atleast trying to end this and contribute with some useful information but you on the other hand, chucky my boy, idk what ima do with you.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> And i respect uncle ben for atleast trying to end this and contribute with some useful information but you on the other hand, chucky my boy, idk what ima do with you.


maybe try some better memes and tactics, yours were tried just the other day by some other kid,LAME


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 12, 2014)

Hydroburn said:


> skip to 5:20... it is well known indoors that the lower nugs need supplemental lighting or they turn out fluffy/shitty. It doesn't matter how old you are, how many pounds of potatos you can grow, or how many Ed Rosenthal books you have from 1970.... you cannot fuck with math (light spread/fall off).
> 
> "...every thousand watts of under-lighting I add, I get about another 1 pound of weight, and I don't have to lollipop."


But that only adds one pound per light. I'm going for higher yield per light.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> View attachment 3272315


*So sorry, about the virgin life, But dude, you really don't have to post pics of yourself*


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> *So sorry, about the virgin life, But dude, you really don't have to post pics of yourself*


you must get a rush from coming on here for ur 15 minutes of fame and portraying ur insecurties in other people, if daddy didnt love u as a kid its okay, ill be ur Daddy now, u can call me poppa blaze.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> you must get a rush from coming on here for ur 15 minutes of fame and portraying ur insecurties in other people, if daddy didnt love u as a kid its okay, ill be ur Daddy now, u can call me poppa blaze.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 12, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


>


Takes one to know one...


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 12, 2014)




----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Whenu go to work does uncle ben pack you a cockmeat sandwhich?


So this is what I get for trying to help shithead lollipoppers like you? I give up.....

Based on the "likes" at least some may be getting it.

UB


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> So this is what I get for trying to help shithead lollipoppers like you? I give up.....
> 
> Based on the "likes" at least some may be getting it.
> 
> UB


No need to get emotional benny boy its all X's O's, + im just playin around wit chuck, i figured if he could take a dick he could take a joke but i musta been wrong.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> No need to get emotional benny boy its all X's O's, + im just playin around wit chuck, i figured if he could take a dick he could take a joke but i musta been wrong.


You have a lot of faggot responses, you sure love yourself some dick, huh?


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

Only big black ones


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Only big black ones


That's what I thought


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)




----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> That's what I thought


Ahh i wish u lived by me chuckles, wed get dis shit straight reallll fuggin quick.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Ahh i wish u lived by me chuckles, wed get dis shit straight reallll fuggin quick.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

Chuck is softer than charmin ultra


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Chuck is softer than charmin ultra


ask your mom for help again?? c'mon you can do better


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

ay chuck where u at doe? I got some official sour if u tryna get ur mind right, smokin all that home grown fufu got ur head all fugged up.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> ay chuck where u at doe? I got some official sour if u tryna get ur mind right, smokin all that home grown fufu got ur head all fugged up.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

Ya mama shoulda swallowed you.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Ya mama shoulda swallowed you.


best part of you ran down your daddy's leg


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

Chuck pees sitting down...


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Chuck pees sitting down...


cause my cock is so big, I don't like peeing on the floor.

NEXT,


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> cause my cock is so big, I don't like peeing on the floor.
> 
> NEXT,


Lmao that dont even make sense bro, ud be flushing ur dick if thats the case lololol sheeeit i guess u gotta get aroused some how


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Lmao that dont even make sense bro, ud be flushing ur dick if thats the case lololol sheeeit i guess u gotta get aroused some how


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


>


Stop spending every day in your grow area, get out n get some pussy, interact with the opposite sex.


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

Cuz you know, nothing says mature like a middle aged man spending hours on a website based on growing pot every day, posting memes intended for kids in highschool.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Cuz you know, nothing says mature like a middle aged man spending hours on a website based on growing pot every day, posting memes intended for kids in highschool.


Yep, guess I'll go out at 6 30 in the morning and try and get some pussy, instead of just banging my GF(your sister) who is sleeping
STFU dumbass


----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

chuck estevez said:


> Yep, guess I'll go out at 6 30 in the morning and try and get some pussy, instead of just banging my GF(your sister) who is sleeping
> STFU dumbass


U maaaddd lol


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> U maaaddd lol


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)




----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

Look at these beautys, the one in the front right ima call it chuck estahaze.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)




----------



## Jussblaz3420 (Oct 13, 2014)

Ay chuck, this the girl i named after you, Pretty good for some punk kid who cant grow pot.


----------



## chuck estevez (Oct 13, 2014)




----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 14, 2014)

You're all inbred butt boys. Damn that's a lot of shit talking. And Justblaze, nice buds. Cut the f-n leaves off.


----------



## skunkd0c (Oct 14, 2014)

is that a real negro or face paint ^^
looks like the guy from Lethal weapon 6


----------



## Sativied (Oct 14, 2014)

skunkd0c said:


> is that a real negro or face paint ^^


Seems legit. 

Your turn. Negro or face paint?


----------



## skunkd0c (Oct 14, 2014)

some more black face






affirmative action/equality


----------



## Sativied (Oct 14, 2014)

Political correct paint faces













Redundant face paint:


----------



## skunkd0c (Oct 14, 2014)

lol they look happy ^^






more equality







only need a little bit of sellotape to give the Asian eye look, these people went too far


----------



## skunkd0c (Oct 14, 2014)

i almost forgot about this


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 15, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> Ay chuck, this the girl i named after you, Pretty good for some punk kid who cant grow pot. View attachment 3272925View attachment 3272926


A close up of trikes is pretty good? Nice photo work......

"You didn't build this"
Obama


----------



## Rico Dynamite (Oct 15, 2014)

skunkd0c said:


> is that a real negro or face paint ^^
> looks like the guy from Lethal weapon 6


That is just a dude,playing a dude, pretending to be another dude.


----------



## howsitgrowin420 (Oct 18, 2014)

st0wandgrow said:


> He didn't show. I work right down the road from there. The thread got locked, and instead of starting a new thread to stir the pot further I decided to drop it. lol


Dude, I have the most hilarious video of you showing up there!


----------



## adower (Oct 19, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> Yes, there is right and wrong and your cannabis specific foods (and hard head) are the culprits, witness yellowing leaves mid level in the first photo. AND, it's just gonna keep working its way up the plant unless you change your "methods of madness".
> 
> I looked at the NPK values of your foods and it confirmed what I suspected and the reason why I asked, not enough N. Of course I got a dodge and then a smart ass challenge. OK....here goes. You're gonna get a taste of good ol fashion Uncle Ben Schooling LOL.  Here you are doing the typical RIU finger pointing when you're finger is crooked....pointing at the wrong culprit - light.
> 
> ...



Why would you waste time on that 2nd harvest? How much longer did you let that go? In that time I would have new plants going in veg and on their way to flower.


----------



## Daggy (Oct 19, 2014)

http://instagram.com/p/r2M5rxJbja/?modal=true


If your serious about your work you lollipop.. Onless you have a way to get some light down there.


----------



## Silky Shagsalot (Oct 19, 2014)

dang bf80, those things look totally stretched...


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 19, 2014)

Sativied said:


> Political correct paint faces
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Definately gives new meaning to the phrase "people of color".


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 19, 2014)

32 days in bud. Half way there.


----------



## Daggy (Oct 19, 2014)




----------



## TexasHank (Oct 24, 2014)

Jussblaz3420 said:


> To me, it sounds like uncle ben is a miserable middle aged man wit a bullshit job and no future to look forward to so he comes on here to spread his misery





Jussblaz3420 said:


> Correct me if im wrong...


Yeah, you are wrong..

UB is retired. He has some great projects going on through his retirement, on a very cool farm he built from a piece of land.
I've seen it myself.. so yes, you are totally off on that one.

Why does he come on here and continue to fight with you all? I'm not sure.. he has history in the MJ growing/Forum world and does not want to just walk away from it.. that is how I understand it.

My advice to you would be to just drop the specific subject and pick his brain on subjects that you do not disagree about. The guy is a plant encyclopedia of knowledge and is often willing to share.. I pick his brain often.. you should too.


----------



## TexasHank (Oct 24, 2014)

adower said:


> Why would you waste time on that 2nd harvest? How much longer did you let that go? In that time I would have new plants going in veg and on their way to flower.


Just 5-7 days has done wonders for lower buds on my plants..

I am especially willing to do this when I have other varieties growing along in the same garden.. so i am running the room another week or 2 anyway..

2nd harvest is a great tool in many situations.. definitely.


----------



## Alexander Supertramp (Oct 24, 2014)

bigbuddin84 said:


> The reason most peole do it is to get rid of all the BS at the bottom. They don't get light and come out airy. It is a great method, I've seen awesome results doing it. Although, citing improved air flow as the reasoning is a new one to me. Like you said, get a bigger fan, lol.


Lack of light has nothing to do with the fluffier buds lower on the plant. It is hormonal distribution that causes this.


----------



## adower (Oct 24, 2014)

TexasHank said:


> Just 5-7 days has done wonders for lower buds on my plants..
> 
> I am especially willing to do this when I have other varieties growing along in the same garden.. so i am running the room another week or 2 anyway..
> 
> 2nd harvest is a great tool in many situations.. definitely.


Another 5-7 days isn't bad. I was thinking weeks. Id rather just get the popcorn blasted.


----------



## Cannasutraorganics (Oct 25, 2014)

Alexander Supertramp said:


> Lack of light has nothing to do with the fluffier buds lower on the plant. It is hormonal distribution that causes this.


And the cure for that? 
I have my way of getting them bigger. Just wonder if yours is different.


----------



## Striking Gold (Oct 25, 2014)

How do you get the biggest buds without wasting money on snake oils? 


Lollipop


----------



## Ninjabowler (Oct 25, 2014)

Alexander Supertramp said:


> Lack of light has nothing to do with the fluffier buds lower on the plant. It is hormonal distribution that causes this.


But it does have to do with the pale yellowish color and under ripeness when the tops are done. Why else would even ben do a two stage harvest? Not ripe, pale lime color.


----------



## Daggy (Oct 26, 2014)

Alexander Supertramp said:


> Lack of light has nothing to do with the fluffier buds lower on the plant. It is hormonal distribution that causes this.


That is bull. I have seen my friend put lighting under the canopy and the lower growth that would usually be fluffy popcorn that gets thrown into the trim were fat healthy nugs that made it into the pound. I know the lower growth has older hormones but are you claiming that they dont yield is bull


----------



## Alexander Supertramp (Oct 26, 2014)

Daggy said:


> That is bull. I have seen my friend put lighting under the canopy and the lower growth that would usually be fluffy popcorn that gets thrown into the trim were fat healthy nugs that made it into the pound. I know the lower growth has older hormones but are you claiming that they dont yield is bull


Where did I say they dont yield? And my post is absolutely correct.


----------



## All I Do Is Win (Oct 26, 2014)

When is the best time to start removing leaves?

Also one more question, do the big fan leaves provide anything better than the smaller ones? Because they seem to block most of the buds and I would rather go for the big fat leaves instead of taking off little tiny ones.


----------



## 70's natureboy (Oct 26, 2014)

In the end it all depends on the strain. some strains can make nice sticky tight buds on the lower branches without much light and some plants just make garbage on the lower branches. Another reason I love my sour D. My Jack Herrer's make garbage on the bottom branches so I lollipop them.


----------



## All I Do Is Win (Oct 26, 2014)

70's natureboy said:


> In the end it all depends on the strain. some strains can make nice sticky tight buds on the lower branches without much light and some plants just make garbage on the lower branches. Another reason I love my sour D. My Jack Herrer's make garbage on the bottom branches so I lollipop them.


gotcha, is it more sativa or indica or is it just strain specific. I am trying to dwindle down the choices so I don't have to do too much lollipoppin


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 27, 2014)

Daggy said:


> That is bull. I have seen my friend put lighting under the canopy and the lower growth that would usually be fluffy popcorn that gets thrown into the trim were fat healthy nugs that made it into the pound. I know the lower growth has older hormones but are you claiming that they dont yield is bull


You're seeing things....you want to see. Grow outdoors and get some real experience. I always do a secondary harvest outdoors. The upper buds will always be more dense and ready before the lower ones. Has nothing to do with light intensity no matter how much you guys want to parrot your misguided forum paradigm - that the direct cause of popcorn buds is due to a lack of light. Some of you numbskulls need to realize that the sugars that are produced by fan leaves located at the top of the plant are translocated throughout, and that includes root production. Anyone heard of a very foreign word called "phloem"? I mean, damn! 

Yeah, you'll get some nugs but even with good, direct lighting, lower buds will not produce like the top. The plant is just not designed that way. Also, there's no such thing as "older hormones". The apical dominance thingie switches to the top of whatever plant material is left.

This is the typical profile of plants that have had a primary harvest and been back under intense lighting for at least 2 weeks and are ready for harvest. 1st shot (Jack Herer) is not very good, second (original C99) is clearer and shows brown pistils.





Oh....and do not try this at home. You have to have lower leaves to pull it off, which 90% of you won't. 

And "in the end" it all depends on botany - not hearsay, variety, or bro science.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 27, 2014)

All I Do Is Win said:


> When is the best time to start removing leaves?


As soon as they appear. Damn things just get in the way of EVERYTHING!


----------



## Sativied (Oct 27, 2014)

The following discusses the equivalent, or the original, of 'lollipopping'. Dutch cannabis growers call it literally translated "thieving". Which refers to removing the thieves (of the mystical energy), which specifically are anticipated axillary buds, and is based on something tomato growers apparently do elsewhere too.

http://myhelptopicsforum.com/how-do-i-have-tomato-plants-thieves/ (haven't read it, just an example)

I do something similar, another grower called it pruning for main stems. I basically remove the lower and "later" shoots as soon as possible. So branches that during transition might otherwise stretch into their own additional bud site I remove during veg. This prevents all those small stretched branches that each have their own leaves as well, basically the stuff in between colas that would not even exist in a sog. I don't not lollipop the eventual bud sites / main branches I 'train' during veg.


----------



## Cpappa27 (Nov 1, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> As soon as they appear. Damn things just get in the way of EVERYTHING!


 Would it work if when the budsites start to appear on the lower branches, where you would lollipop, you cut them off and still have the leaves? It will still focus the energy on the top buds but still have the food and energy reserves from the leaves that it can use during flowering.


----------



## Thecouchlock (Nov 4, 2014)

Uncle Ben said:


> As soon as they appear. Damn things just get in the way of EVERYTHING!


Uncle Ben, I appreciate your wisdom without it I wouldn't have achieved this.

http://rollitup.org/t/loudband-couchlock-style.849958/

No lollipopping or bullshit, no larf at the end, best bud I have EVER brought to fruition. No snake oils, kept it simple and kept the plants happy.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 5, 2014)

Thecouchlock said:


> Uncle Ben, I appreciate your wisdom without it I wouldn't have achieved this.
> 
> http://rollitup.org/t/loudband-couchlock-style.849958/
> 
> No lollipopping or bullshit, no larf at the end, best bud I have EVER brought to fruition. No snake oils, kept it simple and kept the plants happy.


Nice job! Glad it worked out well for ya and thanks for the kind words.

Keep it green,
UB


----------



## since1991 (Jun 15, 2016)

Stompromper said:


> It's just like pruning the suckers off tomato plants.. they drain energy from the main vine and your fruits will suffer. Cutting all the small shot off the bottoms will definitely improve the over all size of your main colas.


No it does not


----------



## Thorhax (Jun 18, 2016)

Uncle Ben said:


> You're seeing things....you want to see. Grow outdoors and get some real experience. I always do a secondary harvest outdoors. The upper buds will always be more dense and ready before the lower ones. Has nothing to do with light intensity no matter how much you guys want to parrot your misguided forum paradigm - that the direct cause of popcorn buds is due to a lack of light. Some of you numbskulls need to realize that the sugars that are produced by fan leaves located at the top of the plant are translocated throughout, and that includes root production. Anyone heard of a very foreign word called "phloem"? I mean, damn!
> 
> Yeah, you'll get some nugs but even with good, direct lighting, lower buds will not produce like the top. The plant is just not designed that way. Also, there's no such thing as "older hormones". The apical dominance thingie switches to the top of whatever plant material is left.
> 
> ...


this is the most generous I've seen you with this information ha. though i agree with you ..... i still lollipop my 6ft tall indoor girls cause last grow the leaves and branches at the bottom were doing funny things but; it really doesn't have to do with yield for me...just aesthetics the canopy was 28 inches deep....i trimmed it down to 18 inches from the bottom up....only 6 days into flower. 

do you have an pro tips for keeping the bottom looking sexy like the top? cause i wouldn't mind having more nugs on my plant


----------



## bdt1981 (Jun 21, 2016)

bf80255 said:


> have you ever ran a really tight SOG? impossible to avoid issues without labaratory settings or lollipopping that s why I do it


The aeroflo2 is a perfect example of tight sog. 36 in a 4x4 really should be lollie popped the first 2 or 3 weeks, depending on strain. Some branch a lot and some dont. I lolliepopped my last gro but not my current one sure is lits of colas but not as big


----------



## Johndoes (Sep 7, 2016)

Uncle Ben said:


> Stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> Scientific investigation requires strict control of variables and reproducibility of results to be valid. You will never see that in cannabis forums. You will be subjected to plenty of anecdotal evidence, hearsay, parroting of popular thought, hype and conjecture aka "seeing what you want to see".
> 
> UB


Disappointed UB,

removing lower growth for plants indoors is necessary, there is just not enough light. Outdoor I do not see a reason. You have quite the arrogant attitude there sir. 

Johndoes


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 8, 2016)

Johndoes said:


> Disappointed UB,
> 
> removing lower growth for plants indoors is necessary, there is just not enough light. Outdoor I do not see a reason. You have quite the arrogant attitude there sir.
> 
> Johndoes


And just who in the hell are you?

Man, with every new crop of newbies........


----------



## Johndoes (Sep 8, 2016)

Uncle Ben said:


> And just who in the hell are you?
> 
> Man, with every new crop of newbies........


Not a noob just don't post, funny how you assume and go right for name calling. 

Your a bully, a sad troll, remind me of a collage prof. Throws fits and calls people names just to get them to listen. You brow beat people into thinking you know what your talking about. You have your way and everyone else's is shit. 

The only thing you have done is to get the noobs to get over there fear of cutting their plant. Your job is done her sir time to retire. We will stand on your shoulders to become better growers.


----------



## Butcher Bob (Sep 9, 2016)

Uncle Ben said:


> Stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> Scientific investigation requires strict control of variables and reproducibility of results to be valid. You will never see that in cannabis forums. You will be subjected to plenty of anecdotal evidence, hearsay, parroting of popular thought, hype and conjecture aka "seeing what you want to see".
> 
> UB


Hello old man 

Never see?...are ya sure aboot that? 
I'm pretty sure I've done at least a couple documented side-by-side comparison grows on this very topic...even if they've disappeared with the site(s) they were on. Results for me were the same every time...overall yield was virtually the same, but visual appeal of the finished product was much better for the plants that had the lower fluff trimmed off at the start of flower. Much like pulling blossoms off melon plants once you get a set or two to produce on a vine...allowing further pollinations just makes the resulting melons smaller. But you are right that folks should not just believe what they read...they should try it themselves and truly learn.

But enough aboot that. I tried to e-mail ya, but the addy was no longer in use? So I came here to drop a PM, but evidently there is no PM system here. So I went to yer profile, but I seem to be unable to post to it. Errr  Yet my quest remains, to tell you that Marksurfs has resurfaced at TokeCity. He has been trying to reg here, but has encountered some difficulties. I believe he would like to reconnect with ya to shoot the shit...he's been reminiscing a lot aboot OG days. See if you can post to my profile...maybe then I'll be able to _reply_.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 9, 2016)

Butcher Bob said:


> Hello old man


That is a fact - Medicare, bout with prostrate cancer, back surgery late this month scheduled for discs L1- S1 that have degenerated. Growing old aint for sissies, but am still kicking. Have crews in the vineyard pulling the last of the crop as I write. How's 3,050 # off 195 of premium vinifera vines?  How's your health personal and otherwise?





> Never see?...are ya sure aboot that?
> I'm pretty sure I've done at least a couple documented side-by-side comparison grows on this very topic...even if they've disappeared with the site(s) they were on. Results for me were the same every time...overall yield was virtually the same, but visual appeal of the finished product was much better for the plants that had the lower fluff trimmed off at the start of flower. Much like pulling blossoms off melon plants once you get a set or two to produce on a vine...allowing further pollinations just makes the resulting melons smaller. But you are right that folks should not just believe what they read...they should try it themselves and truly learn.
> 
> But enough aboot that. I tried to e-mail ya, but the addy was no longer in use? So I came here to drop a PM, but evidently there is no PM system here. So I went to yer profile, but I seem to be unable to post to it. Errr  Yet my quest remains, to tell you that Marksurfs has resurfaced at TokeCity. He has been trying to reg here, but has encountered some difficulties. I believe he would like to reconnect with ya to shoot the shit...he's been reminiscing a lot aboot OG days. See if you can post to my profile...maybe then I'll be able to _reply_.


Wow, long time no hearsay. I'm sure we have a lot of notes to compare being that we and Mark go back over a decade as forum geeks, eh! PM should work here, don't know. Will send you one. The old addy has been a gonna in years. 

Thanks for taking the time to look me up and tell Mark "hey".


----------



## Butcher Bob (Sep 9, 2016)

Uncle Ben said:


> How's your health personal and otherwise?
> 
> ...we and Mark go back over a decade as forum geeks, eh! PM should work here, don't know. Will send you one. The old addy has been a gonna in years.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to look me up and tell Mark "hey".


Eh, I'm good I s'pose. Don't like aging, buuut whatcha gonna do.

Marksurfs has been layin low aboot a decade near as I kin figure...have only seen him pop up once during that time. But he's back at it again. He's been talkin aboot when everyone did the Dalat, and I think he's working on the RomP19 again.

No thanks necessary...is why I reg'd here...help us old fukkers stay in touch with each other.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 11, 2016)

Butcher Bob said:


> Eh, I'm good I s'pose. Don't like aging, buuut whatcha gonna do.
> 
> Marksurfs has been layin low aboot a decade near as I kin figure...have only seen him pop up once during that time. But he's back at it again. He's been talkin aboot when everyone did the Dalat, and I think he's working on the RomP19 again.
> 
> No thanks necessary...is why I reg'd here...help us old fukkers stay in touch with each other.


Have a friend growing Dalat now near Austin. Bet you've never seen this! Gifted a guy seeds living in Santa Cruz who grew a couple for a while in his greenhouse until it grew so big he had to take it outside. He even removed greenhouse walk stones and dirt to get more height LOL.  

Funny story - he damned near attacked me in his journal because months went by and it wouldn't bloom. I had warned him around April of what to expect and explained that when it finally did it would explode with flowers. Came back to the forum after being away a few days and I was right, in 2 days it had done just that, just went nuts. Finally harvested in Nov. I believe. SOB never gave us a smoke report, shit! 

Dalat is not for the weak of heart, for those who think there's no life after today's pollen chuckin' mutts everyone brags about.


----------



## BarnBuster (Sep 11, 2016)

good to see you back Ben


----------



## Butcher Bob (Sep 11, 2016)

Uncle Ben said:


> Funny story - he damned near attacked me in his journal because months went by and it wouldn't bloom


I know that feeling. 

I was just not prepared for the Dalat......that strain really needs to be done outside in a tropical climate.

These clones are all aboot 7 weeks into flower. The three Shiva Skunk x Blueberry in the back are in 2gal pots...were aboot 18" when they were put in...now at aboot 24"...and almost ready to harvest. The Dalat in front is in two stacked 4gal pots...was aboot 12" going in...now at aboot 84"...and hardly starting to flower.

At that time I normally did lollypop SOGs...12" in, 18" out, bottom third stripped off. But the Dalat threw me off. The SSxB got to 18" in veg while I was waiting for the Dalat to get tall enough so that I could add the second 4gal pot on top of the first.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 11, 2016)

Santa Cruz is pretty cool, never hot. It's been a while but I don't believe his started flowering until late September. Like I told him Dalat and other equatorial types flower based on chronological age versus a hormonal phytochrome thingie or a photoperiod dependent internal switch like the indie/sat mutts.

Just got a PM from Riddle that his Dalat is just now flowering. He's growing indoors in Denver.


----------



## luvtogrow (Sep 15, 2016)

I'm a 20 year indoor grower and owe a bunch to Uncle Ben for his input many years back. You are the man!! I trim bottom branches after first week 12/12, and trim again at week 2 12/12, if needed imo. Didn't trim at all for many years. My reasons for trimming are as some mentioned (read first 8 pages), clearance for ease of watering, keeping bottom leaves out of dirt and most important to me- ability to keep prime buds directly under light because I can get them closer together under footprint, without popcorn branches pushing against other plants for space and not allowing more plants under direct light. I see the difference in my grows (anecdotal of course), more large bud, less small bud. See the difference in my jarred bud. Popcorn bud tastes and smoke is less desirable than prime tops. imo Just the way I like to grow. Don't want those long lower hanging, drooping, falling, needing support, nonproducing, poor tasting, lower quality, airy, soft, tiny buds in my grow. Having done it both ways for so long (no trim, trim), I really know what works here.


----------

