# Should some leafage be pruned to let light penetrate canopy



## odlaw (Oct 24, 2010)

i have a canopy that is almost 1 mtr wide 
most of the branching was tied to grow sideways for most of its veg life so now i have alot of huge fan leaves across the canopy blocking out light
heres a couple pics



should i prune a little bit of leafage back or not


----------



## chronicman210 (Oct 25, 2010)

if i were you i would definitely take off some extra leafage.. i got some 6ft kush going along and damn... i didnt realize to prune em untill like week 7... no they are doing better and filling up nicely... just dont get to crazy... maybe even cut some leaves in half instead of fully plucking a energy leaf off.... ya digg?? i think this is called de foilage... or something like that.


----------



## 420God (Oct 25, 2010)

I remove leaves but very selectively. Lower fan leaves off the main stalk are the first to go then maybe a few here and there off some of the branches. When LSTing it's almost a must.


----------



## cadeneli (Oct 25, 2010)

This is a topic that will be debatable until the end of time. I personally don't cut any healthy leaves. There are growing techniques that require it. Such as scrog and sog. The best advice I can give you on this topic is do what you think is best for your grow.


----------



## NLNo5 (Oct 25, 2010)

Dont fucking chop your leaves the plant will drop the leaves as is needed. Roots supply the leaves and the buds, leaves supply the roots and the buds. Trust your plant to keep the balance.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 25, 2010)

Not this shit again!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PistilPimp (Oct 25, 2010)

Defoliation is a tried and true method. If you're light isn't penetrating, cut back the leaves that are blocking lower budsites. No ill effects, I do it every grow. Don't go overboard though, cut off only what is blocking bud sites.


----------



## sparkie (Oct 25, 2010)

call me naive but i can't see the point of removing light receiving leaves so that other leaves can get light? One would have thought the plan can deal with this situation naturally, or one could always resort to LST as someone mentioned.

The exception is if its blocking light from a bud.


----------



## jewgrow (Oct 25, 2010)

sparkie said:


> call me naive but i can't see the point of removing light receiving leaves so that other leaves can get light? One would have thought the plan can deal with this situation naturally, or one could always resort to LST as someone mentioned.
> 
> The exception is if its blocking light from a bud.


no exceptions....bud doesn't photosynthesize nearly as well as large energy producing fan leaves.


----------



## odlaw (Oct 30, 2010)

thanks all for your input
i have decided not to prune


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Oct 30, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Not this shit again!!!!!!!!!!!


This is getting right up there with the moon landing.


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 30, 2010)

good call not pruning your plants will stay healthy way longer.. if some of your lower stuff looks like its not gonna produce just cut them buds off and more will go into your tops...


----------



## Juicy Fruit (Oct 30, 2010)

Lolipoping and fim/topping is pruning, and how its supposed to be done. You don't remove the fan leafs you just remove the branch to get any benefit.


----------



## Unclejoe51 (Oct 30, 2010)

When I put mine into flowering stage I always cut off all little branches on the lower part of the plant & all the big leaves. They look like skeletons when I'm done. I've found they go into bud quicker & grow bigger buds as well. I know some say that it stresses the plant but my results say otherwise. To each his own I guess.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 30, 2010)

Removing leaves makes grows like this possible.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 30, 2010)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> This is getting right up there with the moon landing.


At least Buzz Aldrin got it right!


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 30, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> At least Buzz Aldrin got it right!


Sad you never will even attempt it. You will be stuck grounded for life it seems ...... Too bad for you


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 31, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Sad you never will even attempt it. You will be stuck grounded for life it seems ...... Too bad for you


You don't know what I've attempted. I was experimenting with cannabis (and other plant material) while you was still messin' in your drawers.

Now.....stop the arrogant know-it-all plays, go butcher your plants, and be done with it.

UB
.


----------



## tsky (Oct 31, 2010)

leave it for now then on harvest day only chop the top buds, then remove fan leaves blocking lower budsites and leave the rest of the plant to keep going another week or two as tops may mature faster than lower down buds anyway


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 31, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> You don't know what I've attempted. I was experimenting with cannabis (and other plant material) while you was still messin' in your drawers.
> 
> Now.....stop the arrogant know-it-all plays, go butcher your plants, and be done with it.
> 
> ...


Yeah and you have no idea how old I am or how long I have been growing do you ? What are you 80 years old ? Pot calling the kettle black my friend. People offer up real world experience and you come in with YOUR ultra arrogant know it all BS trying to discredit other grower's proven techniques. Grow up old man =)


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 31, 2010)

Guy closed the poll lol oh well.


----------



## odlaw (Nov 1, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Guy closed the poll lol oh well.


it was up for a week


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 1, 2010)

odlaw said:


> it was up for a week



Should give a poll a lot longer then that to get any real input on it.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 1, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Should give a poll a lot longer then that to get any real input on it.


Dats right. Cornell University and Texas A&M didn't have a chance!


----------



## odlaw (Nov 1, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Should give a poll a lot longer then that to get any real input on it.[/QUOTE
> 
> 1. when i posted this i wasnt sure if it would cause arguments so i didnt want it open to long and well i was right on that one i can see in previous posts that some peeps here either dont like new peeps trying to get answers on things they not sure about and whine or leave smart remarks when i thought that was what this site was for and also peeps arguin becuase they have diff opinions on the subject why cant peeps just leave constructive posts and agree to disagree
> 
> 2. the other reason i only had it open for a week is cause the grow aint gunna wait for me and the longer i left it the more work i had if i decided to prune


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 2, 2010)

odlaw said:


> dlively11 said:
> 
> 
> > Should give a poll a lot longer then that to get any real input on it.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 2, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Dats right. Cornell University and Texas A&M didn't have a chance!



You really are a tool UB and not a very clever one at that. Hey whatever makes you feel better .....


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 2, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> odlaw said:
> 
> 
> > It's a courtesy to others to do a search first on the topic. Right now, I can link you to about 3 or so recent threads started on this plant butchering topic, and then there is the old Lollipop thread that went on forever. Do a search.
> ...


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 2, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> You really are a tool UB and not a very clever one at that. Hey whatever makes you feel better .....


Science makes me feel better. Hey, don't get mad at me cause the poll didn't go your way, and, I didn't even vote LOL.

You'll get over it. A good book like R.C. Clark's MJ Botany or Mel Franks stuff might help with the confusion, as well as some real world experience. 

UB
.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 2, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Science makes me feel better. Hey, don't get mad at me cause the poll didn't go your way, and, I didn't even vote LOL.
> 
> You'll get over it. A good book like R.C. Clark's MJ Botany or Mel Franks stuff might help with the confusion, as well as some real world experience.
> 
> ...


Yeah I am sure that good old science makes you sleep better at night while you are yielding HALF what myself and others are capable of. I am sure you think everyone is just making up their yields and photo shopping pictures to convince you ... lol. Too bad their aren't books on how science isn't as black and white when it comes to growing as you think. Keep telling yourself whatever you like to fell better about yourself. All I have to do is look at my own results to feel just fine. I love seeing your avatar and how I grow about 8 buds that size in the same amount of space chopping leaves and all....


----------



## FropHead (Nov 3, 2010)

No way to prove you are a shitty grower like spending all your time on the internet shit-talking another grower. How about you at least make it interesting for us and post these infamous pictures for all to see? How about some fucking evidence? Anything? Ya, I'm the best fucking grower on the planet, _but I don't believe in digital cameras..._

And ya, you can't throw a rock in this forum without hitting a topic on this shit. That said, it's always nice to reformulate the question to your specific needs and get some fresh info without having to wade through 50 pages of spam in an old thread to get one iota of good, solid advice.


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 3, 2010)

dively, just give it a rest. do what is best for your garden. pruning leaves, takes energy away from the plant, that is used to make bud. that is what i believe and what is true. read some botany. but you like to prune, so prune. UB goes by botany, as do i. quit attacking, and the bikering between you will stop, unless your just trolling for it.


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 3, 2010)

and science is the reason you live so comfortably today, and not out in the woods trying not to get eaten by predators. dont bash science just because you arent cognitive enough to understand it.


----------



## Brick Top (Nov 3, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Uncle Ben said:
> 
> 
> > He's right, don't look for modern day grows and techniques , instead pick up a book from the early 80s ... everything there was to learn about growing MJ was learned by the early 80s just ask UB ..... facepalm
> ...


----------



## Grumpy Old Dreamer (Nov 3, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> Botanical facts are not disproved by fads that uneducated growers like to think are better ways of doing things.
> 
> 85% of light passes through leaves to strike the lower portions of plants. The chlorophyll in leaves reflect green light rays. The human eye is most sensitive to green light so to the human eye the lower portions of plants appear to not be receiving much light since there is little green light for the human eye to see, but plants are not the human eye and the remaining light that the human eye does not see does exist and it is used by the lower portions of plants.
> 
> If someone has plants that are not receiving adequate light to the lower portions of their plants the problem is not too many leaves on the upper portions of their plants. Their problem is inadequate lighting and the solution to inadequate lighting is not removing leaves. The solution to inadequate lighting is upgrading your lighting.


 
Well said ... +rep for taking the time


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 3, 2010)

well said brick, but you shouldnt give these "know it alls" cough dively cough, good info like that. make them pick up a book, or do a search on how plants work. once they learn that, they will quickly understand that lollipop-ping is DUMB.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 7, 2010)

ElectricPineapple said:


> well said brick, but you shouldnt give these "know it alls" cough dively cough, good info like that. make them pick up a book, or do a search on how plants work. once they learn that, they will quickly understand that lollipop-ping is DUMB.


Pretty funny stuff. You obviously dont believe in proof is in the putting. You take one scientific botanical fact and assume it applies to every growing scenario and it simply doesn't. Doing 4 plants in every square foot doesnt allow you to keep all your leaves. I have tried it many times both ways and yields get cut in half or less when you dont cut the leaves off in THIS style of grow. It amazes me how so many hard core believers in science dismiss results like so many get that grow this way. Even more amazing is the people who refute these results dont have results themselves anywhere near as good as the leaf choppers lol ...... What does that tell you ?? I think most people reading these types of threads are educated enough to know the answer to this. I posted my results and lots of pictures you guys have nothing that holds a candle to this. Enjoy your sub par yields and all those leaves guys =)


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 7, 2010)

nah, i will stick to what i know is right, SCIENCE.


----------



## noober doober (Nov 7, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Pretty funny stuff. You obviously dont believe in proof is in the putting. You take one scientific botanical fact and assume it applies to every growing scenario and it simply doesn't. Doing 4 plants in every square foot doesnt allow you to keep all your leaves. I have tried it many times both ways and yields get cut in half or less when you dont cut the leaves off in THIS style of grow. It amazes me how so many hard core believers in science dismiss results like so many get that grow this way. Even more amazing is the people who refute these results dont have results themselves anywhere near as good as the leaf choppers lol ...... What does that tell you ?? I think most people reading these types of threads are educated enough to know the answer to this. I posted my results and lots of pictures you guys have nothing that holds a candle to this. Enjoy your sub par yields and all those leaves guys =)


I would like to see your pics! post em up! fyi, it's pudding not "putting"


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 7, 2010)

Let's compromise.

dlively, you cut every single leaf off of the plant, and I mean every single one. Leave nothing but a stick.

Uncle Ben, you can tape them all back on, but in different spots. Don't be afraid to get creative, either... I want to see some topiaries! 

Or, you two could just agree to disagree.

Option three is for you both to do a side-by-side comparison and post results.

Regardless, you both ought to stop arguing.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 7, 2010)

I thought I already posted my insignificant proof in this thread too but perhaps I forgot. Hard to keep track of all these threads with UB posting such drivel on leaf removal. FYI I can grow at least 8 of these in the footprint UB uses for one of his plants like in his sig and others pics he posted in other threads . Funny how the style of growing I chose yields a good amount more then his yet he constantly attacks it...... Ignorance is bliss... Give a someone a little knowledge and they just run with it right off a cliff if they have to. Whatever. He grows well and its all he needs which is just fine. The style of growing I chose out produces his a good bit yet he continues to bash it since it just isnt scientifically plausible..... Annoying to say the least. When you are proven to be as wrong on a topic as he has it is just plain bull headed to continue to argue about it. Especially in a condescending way like he does in every single thread on this topic. Its like having a pitcher throw a 100 MPH fast ball and arguing that is just isn't possible while you are being shown the radar gun..... I'd say he has one of the biggest egos on this board ...

Anyway these Fruity Chronics averaged 30 grams per plant cut and dried at 4 per SQ foot. That is 120 grams per SQ foot. Yup removing those leaves sure killed my yields lol ... There is a time and place for leaf removal. Big plants no not really needed. Tight full SOG or SCROG and you have to do it in order to benifit from that particular style of growing IF you want a max yield. 















Here is a tray at week 6 two weeks left to pack on. Not as high of yielding strain as the above but you get the idea. Every single fan leaf was removed from every single plant in these pics above and below by week 3 of bloom.


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 7, 2010)

good grow, imagine the yield if you wouldnt have pruned


----------



## Abusive Kush (Nov 7, 2010)

Unclejoe51 said:


> When I put mine into flowering stage I always cut off all little branches on the lower part of the plant & all the big leaves. They look like skeletons when I'm done. I've found they go into bud quicker & grow bigger buds as well. I know some say that it stresses the plant but my results say otherwise. To each his own I guess.


Bingo, this is exactly what I do. Any branches that can't receive light must go. Also allows air to flow thru your
Garden. Not growing leaves or real scrawny branches. It seems to work well. Just my stoned 2 cents


----------



## Brick Top (Nov 7, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> I thought I already posted my insignificant proof in this thread too but perhaps I forgot. Hard to keep track of all these threads with UB posting such drivel on leaf removal.


What you call Uncle Ben's "drivel on leaf removal" are scientifically proven botanical facts. What you offer, regardless of pictures being provided, is your personally chosen belief, not scientifically proven facts like Uncle Ben's information, but instead and always only your personally chosen belief and nothing more. 

No matter how many times you repeat your personally chosen belief and not matter how hard you attempt to push your personally chosen belief on others attempting to influence them it will never turn Uncle Ben's scientifically proven facts into being wrong or somehow magically and mystically transform your personally chosen belief into being scientifically proven fact.

Like it or not ... that is reality. If you prefer to live outside the bounds of reality that is cool and the gang with me but it is irresponsible of you to attempt to influence others into abandoning reality in favor of joining you in your own personally chosen belief that exists outside the bounds of reality.


----------



## OZUT (Nov 8, 2010)

This is too funny...


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 8, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> What you call Uncle Ben's "drivel on leaf removal" are scientifically proven botanical facts.......


Hi BT. Some live their lives based on feelings not facts.

BTW, finally watched your recommendation, The Hangover. Gawd that was funny. Had to watch the ending a couple of times, it was hilarious! Good call.......

Tio


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 8, 2010)

Unclejoe51 said:


> When I put mine into flowering stage I always cut off all little branches on the lower part of the plant & all the big leaves. *They look like skeletons when I'm done.*


I had to go back and see what I had missed. Now that one is hilarious! 

Look at the Similar Posts section at the bottom of this page. Like I said, with every crop of noobs that don't (want to) understand botany......


----------



## 420God (Nov 8, 2010)

It's a never ending debatable subject.

Pruning is just another technique growers use. No different than topping or LSTing.

Any quick search on the web will tell you the same--> http://www.concept420.com/marijuana_pruning_tips.htm
http://www.1stmarijuanagrowerspage.com/do-marijuana-fan-leaves-get-trimmed.html


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 8, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> What you call Uncle Ben's "drivel on leaf removal" are scientifically proven botanical facts. What you offer, regardless of pictures being provided, is your personally chosen belief, not scientifically proven facts like Uncle Ben's information, but instead and always only your personally chosen belief and nothing more.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your personally chosen belief and not matter how hard you attempt to push your personally chosen belief on others attempting to influence them it will never turn Uncle Ben's scientifically proven facts into being wrong or somehow magically and mystically transform your personally chosen belief into being scientifically proven fact.
> 
> Like it or not ... that is reality. If you prefer to live outside the bounds of reality that is cool and the gang with me but it is irresponsible of you to attempt to influence others into abandoning reality in favor of joining you in your own personally chosen belief that exists outside the bounds of reality.


I dont know where to begin with this post so I'll make it quick and to the point. Pulling 3lbs plus per light is not a "belief" It is a FACT and has been on my grows for a solid year working with 7 lights. Trying to spin this so it works in your favor just makes you two look silly to most on this board. If your so called scientific facts applied to everything in regards to growing MJ my grows and others would not be capable of yielding half that. Lots of guys getting over 1 gram per watt removing leaves just like I do. If you two cant see the writing on the wall and want to try and twist FACTS/science around to feel better about yourselves that up to you. You guys are wrong, dead wrong about leaf removal in these types of grows. The way you guys try to twist all common sense/logic around one would think you were politicians =)

I should have said closed mindedness is bliss.... you think one two dimensional scientific fact applies to every aspect of growing which is why you two fail over and over and over. I think 99% of people reading these can see this. Said it before and I'll say it again, go grow a 4X4 table with 64 plants on it and see what kind of yields you get without removing leaves. Very simple way to prove yourself wrong. I have grown both ways many times and it is honestly laughable what you two keep repeating in these threads. You guys keep yapping about a method you have never done. I talk about it because I actually have real world experience. Depite all your attempts to sound clever you guys just keep coming across as closed minded and foolish.


----------



## Brick Top (Nov 8, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> I dont know where to begin with this post so I'll make it quick and to the point. Pulling 3lbs plus per light is not a "belief" It is a FACT


It is evident that you fail to understand what a scientifically proven botanical fact is. Your belief is that just because you do accomplish what you do that it somehow is proof that it is the very best way to do things and that it disproves scientifically proven facts. 

Facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs and the twain shall meet.


----------



## purpdaddy (Nov 8, 2010)

Its all in different "STYLES" and techniques of growing...to each his own is how i play it..Lollipopping makes the plant concentrate on certain MAIN colas..Packs on sum weight...but if you give the plant enough light and room you can come out with the same or better result with topping or LSt;whatever....all in what you prefer and your techniques...Either way you getting BUD!


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 8, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> It is evident that you fail to understand what a scientifically proven botanical fact is. Your belief is that just because you do accomplish what you do that it somehow is proof that it is the very best way to do things and that it disproves scientifically proven facts.
> 
> Facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs and the twain shall meet.


lol yeah well you sure "proved" your point once again with the same regurgitated nonsense. case and point, I yield consistently more then your or UB doing something that should give me much lower yields. Ignore this FACT all you want but it remains a FACT. Obviously you two will forever think there is only one application for a scientifically proven fact and that will forever be your downfall. Sad but true. There is about 60 years experience between the two of you yet you just choose to yield a lot less ? Lol, okay ....... MANY people accomplish the same thing doing the same exact thing. Being so bullheaded about this wont make you right. You guys offer no evidence of your own just the same old "scientific botanical fact" over and over and over. Personally I listen to the people that keep winning the race not the loser that explains why they "should" have won.....


----------



## carl.burnette (Nov 8, 2010)

Odlaw.. I find your Avatar strangely disturbing.. Like, in a bad way..


Must be something from my childhood


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 8, 2010)

FACT is once you do a full SOG , SCROG or simply growing under artificial light the simple botanical scientific facts obviously dont apply the same way anymore. You have a stationary light source and you have a very unnatural plant setup. Some people continue to ignore the FACT that plants need light and it is one of the most important FACTS for good bud development. ANYONE who thinks that a grow with four plants per square foot will not benefit from leaf removal clearly has never done it themselves. Even with massive leaf removal it is still hard to keep each plant in good light. Plants have to be trained perfectly. All the books your guys are referring to with all their botanical scientific facts simply do not take these factors into account, plain and simple. The authors of those books viewpoints would change dramatically if they did. Being open minded and willing to try other techniques will only help you grow better. Being closed minded and not being open to other techniques will give you the same old results over and over. Big surprise I know. Glad I decided to think for myself and try what many others have done before me. 

To the latecomers to this so called "debate" every single HIGH yield grow uses one form or pruning or another. By high yield I am talking about 3+ lbs per light every 8 weeks. I have read every single high yielding thread I could find on this an every other site and EVERY single one that was yielding in the crazy high range of 1.5-1.9 grams per watt was pruning and removing leaves. Dont let the old timers and their old fashion views get in your way of achieving the same thing. ITs the same thing over and over from them. Someone posts about removing leaves and when guys like myself say it can work very very well if done correctly, they come in with their very Superior and condescending replies. I always come in trying to keep people open to the idea and dont knock it unless you have tried it. It is very offensive IMO how they come across in these threads. They are always the FIRST to name calling "noobs, beginners, inexperience" etc. I for one have been growing pot since the early 80s and have 5 very full years of indoor growing. I let my results dictate how I grow. I am sure some might be happy with half the yields I and other get but I want the max I can get for my given space.


----------



## OZUT (Nov 8, 2010)

So now you're at 7 lights and harvesting 448 plants every 2 months and getting 21 pounds every 2 months? Between all the cloning, maintenance, feeding, trimming and all the other good stuff that comes with growing 448 plants, where you do find all this time to educate everyone? 

You're like a really bad spider mite infestation. Just won't go away and let people grow their stash.


----------



## OZUT (Nov 8, 2010)

Btw, having room to run 7 lights doesn't really make you limited on space.


----------



## Viagro (Nov 8, 2010)

Man, this is a rocksteady thread. Sorry I'm late to the party...but I digress...


----------



## jewgrow (Nov 8, 2010)

All I have to say is that a plant that hasn't been pruned to shit is of much higher quality plant when compared to a plant that hasn't been.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 8, 2010)

OZUT said:


> So now you're at 7 lights and harvesting 448 plants every 2 months and getting 21 pounds every 2 months? Between all the cloning, maintenance, feeding, trimming and all the other good stuff that comes with growing 448 plants, where you do find all this time to educate everyone?
> 
> You're like a really bad spider mite infestation. Just won't go away and let people grow their stash.


You pretty much summed it up. Also you have it ass backwards. Bricktop and UB are the ones constantly busting into these threads ridiculing people who use this PROVEN technique. I simply defend this method nothing more. I have never once posted tying to brag but rather point out the error in their thinking and application of botanical science. I am helping those that are willing to listen. I figure if I can help save someone a few years to achieve similar results I am doing a good thing for the community. I choose to share my knowledge and dont appreicate these guys always talking down to me and others who utlize this advanced technique.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 8, 2010)

jewgrow said:


> All I have to say is that a plant that hasn't been pruned to shit is of much higher quality plant when compared to a plant that hasn't been.


 More misinformation. My pruned plants have a much higher percentage of quality buds then unpruned plants ever do. Growing nothing but colas INCREASES quality not decrease. My pictures speak for themselves and theirs, what little they post, speak for themselves. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize which one is producing more and which one is going to have more solid buds instead of popcorn buds you get letting plants go wild under a HPS light.


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 8, 2010)

dlively, your the definition of a troll. i dont even want to share knowledge with you, because your DUMB. sorry


----------



## OZUT (Nov 9, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> dont appreicate these guys always talking down to me and others who utlize this advanced technique.



Everyone here is a big boy (or at least they should be) and don't need a self elected spokesman defending them and picking fights in every thread with the same people and with the same argument. You're not going to get through to them just as they're not going to get through to you. What you call "advanced technique" is really nothing more than elementary and your way of growing is not going to apply to everyone and most of the people don't care much either. Those that care will make it known. Those that don't, don't need someone lecturing them. Just as you're "experimented", so have I and a lot of the people you claim are stuck in the 70's. I've pruned all my leaves and compared it to the ones I left alone. The ones with their fan leaves yielded almost double what the pruned ones did. I can argue experiments and so can you. I can also argue science while all you can do is post up the same picture again. You see my point? This will never end, so just let it go man.

As for your set up, if you're yielding what you claim to be, then good for you. You found what works for you and you're sticking to it. But the pictures you put up are not a 7 lighter set up with 448 plants...and no, I don't need pictures or any of that stuff. I really could care less how many lights and plants you're running.

Just keep your arguments respectful man...I know we've all lost our cool once or twice before, I know I have and have said some stuff that I shouldn't have, but that's life. In your case, you just raise hell everywhere you go. Not cool man.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 9, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> You pretty much summed it up. Also you have it ass backwards. Bricktop and UB are the ones constantly busting into these threads ridiculing people who use this PROVEN technique.


I'll say it again amigo, when you can provide an unbiased, non-partisan, professional series of field tests using a control group which measures such data as weights of leaf matter removed, the cause/effect yield relationship, etc. then I might give you the benefit of the doubt. Again, all I've seen from you is emotionally driven anecdotal posts and photos showing what looks to me like a lot of foliage in spite of your pruning efforts. 

Also, you guys loosely throw around forum buzzwords like "yield per light" without defining anything concrete about the "light" quality. Are YOU talking about CFL's, HO fluors, HID's in a parabolic rust bucket hood or highly sophiscated hood design of spectral aluminum? What about the quality and placement of reflecting panels (which can add up to 30% more light to all levels), etc.?

Again, I have been growing all kinds of production type plant material for decades - fruit trees, berries, grape vines, cannabis, orchids, nut trees, roses, annuals, vegetables, turf and it's a no-brainer - the amount of production of flowers or fruit is directly related to the amount of healthy foliage up to and during harvest AND the amount of light actually received and effectively processed in the chloroplasts, another fact you guys seem to want to dismiss. Get a light meter that registers to 10K f.c., a PAR meter if you're that anal, and remove all doubt.

Just because you are happy with your yields, your feelings have no _factual _bearing on what you think is directly related to your leaf removal drills. Could be related to plant nutrition, combination of temps and water, or other factors. 

You have no control group, you have no third party, unbiased, professional journaling your op nor making sure you are embracing sustainable scientific standards of control, etc. You are human - you are doing what we all do - you see what you want to see, you see what you expect to see, you see what others have politically pressured you to see. And if you think another cannabis forum MJ nerd gimmick is "advanced".....I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell to ya.....cheap. 

IOW, one can not take such threads seriously, not if you're a clear thinker and of a scientific mind.

Good luck,
Uncle Ben
.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> I'll say it again amigo, when you can provide an unbiased, non-partisan, professional series of field tests using a control group which measures such data as weights of leaf matter removed, the cause/effect yield relationship, etc. then I might give you the benefit of the doubt. Again, all I've seen from you is emotionally driven anecdotal posts and photos showing what looks to me like a lot of foliage in spite of your pruning efforts.
> 
> 
> Just because you are happy with your yields, your feelings have no _factual _bearing on what you think is directly related to your leaf removal drills. Could be related to plant nutrition, combination of temps and water, or other factors.
> ...


Well "amigo" I stated numerous times that I ave done MANY controlled side by side experiments. Full SOG table with 64 plants on one tray and another right next to it. Plants with no leaf removal yielded less then half what the others did. I did this in two different rooms and swapped the trays to rule out lighting etc as well. Same strains same nutes same everything. My yields are very consistent not a fluke. 60 plants per tray is a lot of plants to compare. Not like doing a few big plants where flukes are more likely. Having growm literally thousands of plants the other way and having grown thousands this way I'd say its safe to say my "feeling" arent a factor here. Max yield I got in the previous FOUR YEARS was 1.5 lbs per light. MAX yield in the last year since going to full SOG and removing leaves 3.5 lbs per light. As for the leaves, yes there are a lot of leaves. Removal of leaves happens at week 3 of bloom. Not before and almost none afterwards. Saying this is my opinion/feelings etc is like saying its my opinion that I am going 60 MPH when I see my speedo at 60 MPH. Makes little to no sense. Nice job sneaking in your normal expected troll like name calling. More pot calling the kettle black. Well this "nerd" grows more utilizing this technique then yourself, judge it how you like. LOTS of other people use the same method with the same results. Go figure......

Oh and the reason you dont see more people posting in favor of this is because they are sick and tired of the same guys coming in bashing their grows. It gets old quick. I stick to what I know for a fact that works. They can stick to what they dont know because they haven't tried it botanical scientific guesses.


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> I'll say it again amigo, when you can provide an unbiased, non-partisan, professional series of field tests using a control group which measures such data as weights of leaf matter removed, the cause/effect yield relationship, etc. then I might give you the benefit of the doubt. Again, all I've seen from you is emotionally driven anecdotal posts and photos showing what looks to me like a lot of foliage in spite of your pruning efforts.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...





dlively11 said:


> Well "amigo" I stated numerous times that I ave done MANY controlled side by side experiments.


Well, Guys? Let's see it. Work out a methodology, and start a study. Shouldn't be too hard for two growing aficionados. Post results and we'll have proof of which way is most effective.

I wouldn't suggest weighing removed material, rather you ought to determine specific criteria for removing leaves. With both parties using a control plant, differences in material, strains, or environment should not matter.

How 'bout it?


----------



## 420God (Nov 9, 2010)

sk'mo said:


> Well, Guys? Let's see it. Work out a methodology, and start a study. Shouldn't be too hard for two growing aficionados. Post results and we'll have proof of which way is most effective.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest weighing removed material, rather you ought to determine specific criteria for removing leaves. With both parties using a control plant, differences in material, strains, or environment should not matter.
> 
> How 'bout it?


 Hell yeah!!!!! For as long as you guys have been arguing you could've switched to 12/12 by now.


----------



## smokeymcpotz (Nov 9, 2010)

sk'mo said:


> Well, Guys? Let's see it. Work out a methodology, and start a study. Shouldn't be too hard for two growing aficionados. Post results and we'll have proof of which way is most effective.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest weighing removed material, rather you ought to determine specific criteria for removing leaves. With both parties using a control plant, differences in material, strains, or environment should not matter.
> 
> How 'bout it?


DAAAAMN good idea.lol So? How 'bout it?


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 9, 2010)

Pot Fight! Pot Fight! Pot Fight!


----------



## OZUT (Nov 9, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Well "amigo" I stated numerous times that I ave done MANY controlled side by side experiments. .



That's just it, all you've ever done is "state" things and make claims. Nothing more. You put up a picture and expect everyone to buy into your claims then start bitching and taking jabs at people when they don't. Here's how I look at it. 

You "claim" to have done MANY controlled side by side experiments. Yet you have nothing documented. Someone that actually goes out of his way to experiment will definately document it for reference, let alone someone that claims to have done MANY. 
You claim to pull 3.5 pounds per light and expect everyone to buy into your claim just because you post a picture of a cola. 
You claim to run 7 lights, but none of your pictures show anything close to a 7 light set up. 
You claim to do 6 plants per square feet yet none of your pictures support it. 
You claim to be running over 400 plants yet again, none of your pictures support that, not to mention your constant presence on this site is an indication that you have a lot of time on your hands for someone claiming to be growing and experimenting as much as you are. 
In another thread you're claiming to be getting 4k a pound for your outdoor grow which is complete BS and just shows that you have no idea what the market pulls. You're either selling to someone that doesn't know shit, which would only happen once or twice, or you're completely blowing smoke.
In yet another thread you claim to have experimented and compared 3 different brands in a side by side experiment. In reality, all you did was use 3 different bases and ignored the fact that you left out everything else that given brand comes with. My point with this, is you're not the most honest or reliable person when it comes to experiments.
You've picked fights and highjacked almost 90% of the threads you've gotten involved in. If someone was to say they get 10 pounds per plant indoors, guaranteed you would come back and say you get 12 like you're out to prove something. Most of the people you argue with have science and reality backing up their claims. You have nothing but your word, which considering your history isn't much. The few pictures you post aren't anything special and do not verify all of your claims.

Have you noticed that not a lot of people are not taking you serious anymore? You really are the text book definition of a troll. And I am not saying any of this stuff to insult you or pick a fight.


----------



## OZUT (Nov 9, 2010)

Also, if the leaves aren't important, why wait till day 21 1/2 to remove them? Why not constantly prune them to get deep penetration throughout your cycle?


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 9, 2010)

OZUT said:


> That's just it, all you've ever done is "state" things and make claims. Nothing more. You put up a picture and expect everyone to buy into your claims then start bitching and taking jabs at people when they don't. Here's how I look at it.
> 
> 
> You "claim" to have done MANY controlled side by side experiments. Yet you have nothing documented. Someone that actually goes out of his way to experiment will definately document it for reference, let alone someone that claims to have done MANY.
> ...


Well just when the dust started settling a little you start up.... I think you need to read a lot more carefully. I havent posted a single thing in ANY thread that isnt accurate 100%. 

Sorry if I didnt do a proper internet comparison for you. Side by side tables clearly dont mean anything. 

I have pulled 3.5 off a tray with Fruity Chronic only . Others range from 2.5 to 3. I made that very clear in my posts a long time ago. I posted not only pics of single colas but trays full of the same huge single colas illustrating how the leaf removal did not hurt my yields. 

Now you are picking on a picture because I didnt get all 7 lights in one pic for you to see ? Seriously? Wow okay... I have 5 lights in one long narrow room that pics were taken in and 3 in another small room. So I actually have 8 now. Guess I was caught lying once again..... Really decided to try and pick at the thin air on this one but whatever ...

I never claimed 6 plants I claimed 4 plants per SQ foot. Lots of my pics support that actually. I also stated I shoot for 64 per light but sometimes it is 50. I just pulled a tray at 60 plants per light with a 19 gram average dried and cut yield. Not a heavy yielder but still netted just over 2.5 lbs WITHOUT CO2.. The only strain I can get 3 or more lbs is Fruity Chronic. Notice how I actually share specific info ? That is because I am trying to help people out not BS them as you are now insinuating.... 

I spend about 30 min on this site a day wow ...... I only need about 2 hours a day in the rooms and a few for cutting .... 

4K I think I stated up to 4K but mostly 3.5. The club I have dealt with for over 4 years has never paid differently for outdoor verse indoor as long as the quality was the same which it is on mine. No other club does this and I never said they did. I even stated I guess I was lucky. This year all the other clubs are giving 2.2 to 2.8 and my old time club is only going up to 3.2. Different market this year. 

As for the 3 brands. Yes I did a experiment with 3 brand nutes and used their base nutes which are 90% or more of what you put in the tank. Pretty damn fair if you ask me. All the additives were EXACTLY the same. Tell me how this is not fair ? For AN and H&G I did actually run rounds with their full overpriced lineup to boot prior to doing the tests I posted about giving them more then a fair chance. 

There is no EGO thing involved for me at all. I post results very much like others post utilizing the same exact technique. The actual trolls come in and bash this method and try to insult our intelligence. So my defending my position is somehow considered being a troll now ? Seriously bro you have some of your wires on backwards if you honestly believe this. I know you like to hang on these guys sacks but really this is too much. ... Yeah they have good grows and the like to quoate science and books from the 70s and early 80s. NOTHING at all has changed in the realm of growing higher quality and higher volume MJ indoors since then... lol I never once claimed credit for getting my results I get. I stated very clearly I copied other growers who had the same results growing this way which is the only reason I ever tried it to begin with. LOTS of other people do this and get over 1.5 grams per watt. I think its fantastic and find it insane that anyone could come in and disrespect growers achieving these results the way they do. They are the ones with a huge ego and cant stand the thought of someone getting better results then they do utilizing a techinique they dont agree with. Would bug me too but instead of arguing about it I would ask questions and listen in order to better my grow. Should be clear that I am tying to help people who are willing to listen and not get blinded by certain people who like to sound like they know everything there is to know. WTF would I go through all this hassle otherwise ? 


Now please reattach yourself and swing away from those two.. =)


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 9, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Also, if the leaves aren't important, why wait till day 21 1/2 to remove them? Why not constantly prune them to get deep penetration throughout your cycle?


Well I have answered this MANY times but clearly you werent paying attention. Plants need leaves, no kidding. I am not stupid and I do realize this despite how others try to portray this method of growing. During the first 3 weeks of bloom the plant is stretching and not in full bloom mode yet. Also the plants arent overcrowded at all at first so there is no reason to remove them yet. I start plucking them at 14 days but do a huge removal at 21 days. As one of my haters pinted out there are still lots of leaves on there. The large fan leaves the ones that stretch out away from your pot are removed. Not every single leaf. No one ever said or implied all leaves were removed. Plant would die if you did that. not very helpful I do pull some leaves after week 3 but very few as it isnt needed if you remove enough by week three. The plants dont grow much in the way of fan leaves after week 3 in bloom. The whole idea is to get a tray full of nice thick dense colas and ZERO wasted growth. Hench maximizing your growth. Yes its a PITA and no I dont love having to deal with it but it gives much higher yields for me then when I grew without removing them or with larger plants. LEaves are VERY important but overgrowth of leaves is not. Just like SCROG or lollipop. Full SOG , a proven way to get huge yields for your space, benefits greatly by doing this. Hell even 2 plants per foot it would help a lot let alone 4. Its a ton of plants. Yes its a PITA but not much more then larger plants really. Instead of using 3 gallon pots I use little 5 inch pots. so about the same amount of medium is used just a way to get a even canopy of buds making it as efficient as possible. Having no veg time in the trays maximizes it greatly as well. 

I just dont get all the hate from some people when people try and share their own personal knowledge. Sad thing especially for a pot forum.....














Here is my 4X8 table with 2 lights and 80 plants on it, as I stated it is hard to keep them all full so sometimes I have to let them get bigger like these and do fewer then I would like. These are also only 3 or 4 DAYS or so into bloom. Can you imagine how overcrowded it would get as they triple in size over the next three weeks ??? I try to hit 100 on this tray sometimes I get more sometimes less. 128 would be perfect but my veg areas isnt able to keep up just yet. 








Some of my "low quality" bud up close







And yes I can grow big plants too =)


----------



## OZUT (Nov 9, 2010)

Read what more carefully? If anyone has read 1 of your posts, they've basically read everything you have to say on the subject of growing and based on your attitude, everything you'll ever have to say on the subject. All your posts are basically the same thing - "I get 3 pounds per light by growing 60 plants in a SOG set up and removing the fan leaves at day 21 1/4 into flower" Then you go on and on about your so called "experiments" then start bashing people, then, usually about 8 or 10 posts in, you post up a picture of a cola then start rambling about how you've just revolutionized growing and proven science wrong simply because you posted a picture of a cola. WOW!!!!!! Then when everyone starts calling you a dick, you start rambling about how you're the defender of the the free thinkers and the ones that can't speak for themselves. You then become a self appointed spokesperson for this group and your "I's" become "we's"....

None of the pictures you posted prove anything you've said. As for you not spending a lot of time online in this forum and your claim that you're on here for about 30 minutes a day. All I gotta say is that your sense and track of time is more fucked then your knowledge of growing. Anyone posting something in a thread you're subscribed to is guaranteed a response from you within the half hour

Give it a rest man...Go grow your 50 pounds every 2 months and just be happy. You could use that $3,200 a pound you get for your outdoor crop to buy yourself some happiness. Every thread with you in it is like a Jerry Springer episode. All scripted and predictable.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 9, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Read what more carefully? If anyone has read 1 of your posts, they've basically read everything you have to say on the subject of growing and based on your attitude, everything you'll ever have to say on the subject. All your posts are basically the same thing - "I get 3 pounds per light by growing 60 plants in a SOG set up and removing the fan leaves at day 21 1/4 into flower" Then you go on and on about your so called "experiments" then start bashing people, then, usually about 8 or 10 posts in, you post up a picture of a cola then start rambling about how you've just revolutionized growing and proven science wrong simply because you posted a picture of a cola. WOW!!!!!! Then when everyone starts calling you a dick, you start rambling about how you're the defender of the the free thinkers and the ones that can't speak for themselves. You then become a self appointed spokesperson for this group and your "I's" become "we's"....
> 
> None of the pictures you posted prove anything you've said. As for you not spending a lot of time online in this forum and your claim that you're on here for about 30 minutes a day. All I gotta say is that your sense and track of time is more fucked then your knowledge of growing. Anyone posting something in a thread you're subscribed to is guaranteed a response from you within the half hour
> 
> Give it a rest man...Go grow your 50 pounds every 2 months and just be happy. You could use that $3,200 a pound you get for your outdoor crop to buy yourself some happiness. Every thread with you in it is like a Jerry Springer episode. All scripted and predictable.


Again reading comprehension is your friend. Try it sometime because you just failed miserably . Wow just wow...... I did a hell of a lot more then post a pic of a cola. I posted lots of pics and detailed info on how the grow was done. Did you even bother to read my above posts ?? LOL I guess not. How do you argue with someone when you are only looking at half of what they post ? I clearly didnt take credit for ANYTHING, if you could actually read and understand everything I write you would see I gave others the credit completely. My pictures prove a whole hell of a lot more then you or you two BFF's ever have. I guess you are just another low yielding hater. Use your own advise and move on because you are just acting like a fool now.. its just getting silly. 


FYI it doesn't take me an hour to read and post like it might take some people I guess.... LOL
Peace


----------



## OZUT (Nov 9, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> FYI it doesn't take me an hour to read and post like it might take some people I guess.... LOL
> Peace


You just don't get it....I'll try to simply it for you....You are on these boards so often, that anyone that posts anything on a thread that you are subscribed to is guaranteed to get a response back from you within the hour" That doesn't mean it takes you an hour to read or respond it means you have too much time on your hands and have nothing to do all day but post mindless garbage on a forum. 

Now honestly, how hard was it for you to restrain yourself from replying immediately after my post? 

Okay, I'll leave you to your trolling now.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 9, 2010)

OZUT said:


> You just don't get it....I'll try to simply it for you....You are on these boards so often, that anyone that posts anything on a thread that you are subscribed to is guaranteed to get a response back from you within the hour" That doesn't mean it takes you an hour to read or respond it means you have too much time on your hands and have nothing to do all day but post mindless garbage on a forum.
> 
> Now honestly, how hard was it for you to restrain yourself from replying immediately after my post?
> 
> Okay, I'll leave you to your trolling now.


 lol, actually it was lost on you not me, pretty funny. I got your simplistic original post but you sure were lost on my reply. Here I'll simplify it for you .... I was making fun of the fact that you think it takes so much time to sit down read and reply to a post. Only takes a long time if you are "slow" if you know what I mean..... I come in and spend 5 minutes 5-6 times a day big deal.... nice way to misdirect the topic at hand though since you clearly didnt make any sense on your previous posts......


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 9, 2010)

This whole thing is almost amusing its so ridicules. I never post my yields with a mind set of bragging but rather t help illustrate just how wrong the real trolls are who do nothing but bash a proven method of growing... I am sure that is only lost on a few select "special" people but I thought I would clarify this anyway..... As for more people not posting its very simple. Its not the most popular and its always a heated debate. MOST people will avoid conflict. Most growers will figure other people can just keep growing less bud. I am stubborn and want to help people who want to shave years and years off their grows. I wasted years of growing and would love to help others avoid this. I'd love to know why anyone would think it is anything but to help fellow growers. It truly astonishes me.... You'd think I was trying to sell Advanced Nutrients on here or something... Car forums are the same way. If you dont take the most popular method of modding your car to get your car faster in the 1/4 mile people act this same exact way. It really rubs them the wrong way when you are going faster in the 1/4 mile with the same car and with half the money invested. Almost identical kinds of threads and responses from haters. So sad but oh well....


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 9, 2010)

hey OZUT, save your fingers the trouble. he is a TROLL. whatever you say, he is still going to argue with you, as that is what trolls do.


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 9, 2010)

So... Pot fight?


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 9, 2010)

probably not, trolls never try and back up there techniques with actual knowledge, much less a grow off


----------



## OZUT (Nov 10, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> This whole thing is almost amusing its so ridicules. I never post my yields with a mind set of bragging but rather t help illustrate just how wrong the real trolls are who do nothing but bash a proven method of growing... I am sure that is only lost on a few select "special" people but I thought I would clarify this anyway..... As for more people not posting its very simple. Its not the most popular and its always a heated debate. MOST people will avoid conflict. Most growers will figure other people can just keep growing less bud. I am stubborn and want to help people who want to shave years and years off their grows. I wasted years of growing and would love to help others avoid this. I'd love to know why anyone would think it is anything but to help fellow growers. It truly astonishes me.... You'd think I was trying to sell Advanced Nutrients on here or something... Car forums are the same way. If you dont take the most popular method of modding your car to get your car faster in the 1/4 mile people act this same exact way. It really rubs them the wrong way when you are going faster in the 1/4 mile with the same car and with half the money invested. Almost identical kinds of threads and responses from haters. So sad but oh well....



Do you not realize that the people arguing for pruning are almost always people that have less than a year experience actually growing? Do you not realize that it's people like you that spread bogus ideas and so called techniques and wow the starter growers with comical claims of high yields and the sort, then actually end up setting them back because they listened. The reason the seasoned growers give a shit and shoot down ideas like pruning fan leaves is to better educate the people that don't know better. Difference between you and them is they have facts and science to support their position. You have *absolutely nothing* to support anything you say other than your claims. 

Here's a thought for you....Seeing how you have a lot of time on your hands and how you religiously defend your 'beliefs", why don't you start a journal with pictures and descriptions to at least try and support a fraction of what you claim instead of yapping away and regurgitating the same thing over and over again.


----------



## Snow Crash (Nov 10, 2010)

There's a time and a place for everything. Defoliation doesn't belong in everyone's garden... Because not everyone is going to grow great plants. I learned to defoliate my plants 6 years ago from a guy I know in Santa Cruz who'd been growing his whole life. To claim that this method is somehow a noob trick (like starting your seeds in paper towels) is clearly to have little to no knowledge from the older generation. Then again, I know a guy in Gilroy who refuses to prune his plants. The both grow good shit though... So it's not like something to get all pissy about.

Want to see what a little defoliation does? It doesn't ruin the plant, it hardly even slows it down, and the stress reaction to produce even more foliage and increase side branch size is phenomenal.

View attachment 1260246View attachment 1260249
(pictures taken 16 days apart, reveged clones of Blue Mystic and Lemon Skunk)

Say whatever you want against the method. End of the day... Defoliation works exceptionally well in my garden. I couldn't care less if anyone else does it, or to what degree they do it. Far be it from me to tell someone how to grow their own. It also worked out for *HumboldtLocal Outdoor 2010*. Check out the pictures at the end on pages 63 and 64 (I think). This grower attributes some of his success to an absolute raping of his plants by some birds. Natural defoliation.

What it boils down to are people that have tried it and people who haven't. If you're too shmoe to pony up and grow an extra plant on the side for "experimental" purposes then your really just not at the place (experientially) to be making the claims I've read throughout. 

The proof is in the pictures guys. The method works. Is it better? Is it worse? I dunno... Gives me something to do and it makes my plants crazy awesome bushes with tons of nodes when I incorporate a method like LST or Scrog with Defoliation. Do what you want, the "anti-theory" is bunk and the results are real. Both methods work fine, I'm looking forward to my increased yields though.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 10, 2010)

OZUT said:


> _*Do you not realize that the people arguing for pruning are almost always people that have less than a year experience actually growing?*_ Do you not realize that it's people like you that spread bogus ideas and so called techniques and wow the starter growers with comical claims of high yields and the sort, then actually end up setting them back because they listened. The reason the seasoned growers give a shit and shoot down ideas like pruning fan leaves is to better educate the people that don't know better. Difference between you and them is they have facts and science to support their position. You have *absolutely nothing* to support anything you say other than your claims.


Excellent post, couldn't have said it better. These ditties of "education", romanticism and obsession with so-called "high tech new concepts", permeates this entire cannabis industry......from seeds to lights, nutes to mediums, additives to supplements. It's a frickin' joke that's played on the newbie that doesn't have a horticultural foundation to draw from, is confused and doesn't know which way to turn. So, the typical vendor or forum poster trying to look cool, uses what I call the "Formby" approach, a system that supposedly takes all of the pain and suffering out of "it" lol. May works on wood but not cellulose hehe.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 10, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Well "amigo" I stated numerous times that I ave done MANY controlled side by side experiments.


And what university did you say your work for?


----------



## purpdaddy (Nov 10, 2010)

I agree...but do what u know works for you. I top and supercropp..check those huge colas in my avatar.Its all in technique and style you prefer or what works best for u.


----------



## Snow Crash (Nov 10, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Excellent post, couldn't have said it better. These ditties of "education", romanticism and obsession with so-called "high tech new concepts", permeates this entire cannabis industry......from seeds to lights, nutes to mediums, additives to supplements. It's a frickin' joke that's played on the newbie that doesn't have a horticultural foundation to draw from, is confused and doesn't know which way to turn. So, the typical vendor or forum poster trying to look cool, uses what I call the "Formby" approach, a system that supposedly takes all of the pain and suffering out of "it" lol. May works on wood but not cellulose hehe.
> 
> UB


So I take it you're going to conveniently ignore the fact that I've disproved everything you say here in the post above...

The "friken joke" would be the growers who joined here, and on other sites like ICMag and Grasscity, 2-3 years ago who I am utterly convinced are either mentally challenged or intentionally trying to sabotage new growers with bad advice. From what I can tell, most of these people all hail from some other MJ Forum that was closed down a few years ago and they all consider themselves to cool for school.

I'm sorry Uncle Ben. You're wrong here dude. There's a tremendous amount of evidence for pruning. If you choose to ignore that evidence then it's your own problem, but please don't try and make it sound like you're the noobs best friend advising against defoliation at all times.

There is a time and a place. And when applied appropriately it works GREAT!


----------



## OZUT (Nov 10, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> So I take it you're going to conveniently ignore the fact that I've disproved everything you say here in the post above...
> 
> !


Uhhh dude, all you did was post a well mannered comment saying that pruning works in your garden. How did that one post disprove everything?

You even said in the end of your post that you didn't know if it works or not


----------



## Snow Crash (Nov 10, 2010)

Is that what I posted...
Good thing you're here to ignore where I learned the method from, when I learned it, and how long I've been growing myself (to refute the argument that this is a noob movement).

That is what has been the recent discussion and exactly what I was referring to.

I also stated that I like what I'm seeing in my own garden. Look at the pictures... If you haven't tried it out for yourself I just don't see how you could speak against it. Don't bash it 'till you try it, you know. (I dunno if you have tried it, but if you haven't then maybe you should give it a shot).

Seriously though, I have evidence for the method. I see very little evidence against outside of theory and hypothesis. Results. Scoreboard.


----------



## OZUT (Nov 10, 2010)

I didn't ignore where you learned the method from or when or how long you been growing because it wasn't mentioned and I don't know. For every 1 of you that's been doing it a while, there are a thousand that are just starting and being wowed into this. Your post may have been in response to the recent discussion on here but mine was in general and not just the recent discussion. The link you posted doesn't prove anything either. That thread is for an outdoor grow with no pruning. The dude had some bad luck and a bunch of birds found their way into his garden and ate up some leaves and newly started seeds. All he said in that post is that he thinks the stress from the bird attack may have caused the seeds to sex early. Never in that entire thread did he say it increased his yield or anything defending or arguing for the removal of fan leaves. In fact, go towards the end of his thread and look at his trees. They're the biggest and healthiest trees you will find anywhere and they have every single leaf on them. They look like hedges.
As for trying it, I have tried it and on numerous occasions. Wouldn't call them experiments in that experimenting wasn't the purpose of that specific grow but I have done it on numerous occasions. I have taken the weakest plant that I would normally toss and did it to see if it would catch up and it didn't. I did it on a couple of the healthiest ones in the bunch to see if the difference would be noticable and it was the exact opposite. Those that started healthy and ahead became weak and fell behind the other smaller ones and my yields and quality suffered. I even to this day will sometimes fuck around with 1 or 2 plants but I have yet to yield more on a pruned plant than one with it's fan leaves. If it's got a place in your garden then that's great, you're doing something that's working for you and no one can hate on that or criticize you for growing the way you grow. 
As for the recent discussions and for the heated arguments, it's really more Dlively's attitude than it is about removing leaves or not. It's like he's getting paid for this shit. Compare your post to any given post he's made. You come in and post your position and thoughts on the subject and do it respectfully. He bitches and moans like a 2 year old that's not getting his way. At the end of the day, people grow how they wanna grow, but to act like you're standing up for a cause or a method but really just trying to create drama and draw attention to yourself, I think it's pathetic and a waste of a lot of people's time which does nothing but confuse a lot of people that have very limited knowledge on growing in general.


----------



## OZUT (Nov 10, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> Seriously though, I have evidence for the method. I see very little evidence against outside of theory and hypothesis. Results. Scoreboard.


Photosynthesis and the purpose of leaves can hardly be considered a theory or a hypothesis. It's a fact. It's science. The purpose and function of a leaf has been proven on a scientific level. You can't get a more concrete fact than that. Those that argue science of the past proves nothing or that growing has evolved are basically saying that the function of a fan leaf has changed in the past couple of years. Yes, new discoveries are made every day. Some things do evolve and science does sometimes disprove something that has been proven in the past. This specifically is not one of them. A 100 pictures can't disprove it, let alone a kid making a claim of higher yields on a cannabis forum behind a computer.


----------



## purpdaddy (Nov 10, 2010)

EXPAND THE MIND! Try new things! Personally i dont like taking anything away from my crop unless it 75% damage or im topping or sumthin lke that.Foliage removal works,ive seen it done,it can also screw u if u dont know what u doing and remove wrong parts.LOL i have never done the foliage removal but doesnt mean i wont give it a shot...just gotta know what to cut..my padna did the last grow like that and if wasnt a noob to hydro we would have gotten ALOT! But even he messed up i was still surprised with the results and got purp bud to smoke so im happy!


----------



## jewgrow (Nov 10, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> More misinformation. My pruned plants have a much higher percentage of quality buds then unpruned plants ever do. Growing nothing but colas INCREASES quality not decrease. My pictures speak for themselves and theirs, what little they post, speak for themselves. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize which one is producing more and which one is going to have more solid buds instead of popcorn buds you get letting plants go wild under a HPS light.


I urge you to read my comment again. I don't think it has much to do with the bud quality, but hey I could be wrong about my own opinion eh? Growing main colas increases quality.....right....'popcorn' buds don't contain all the same parts of the plant that the main colas do.


----------



## purpdaddy (Nov 10, 2010)

The pruning the leaves thing came about when growers had a whole room full...well to see whats going on at the bottom they would trim,,,then it evolved into a style of growing to make the plant concentrate on certain colas.(old skool grower told me that)


----------



## SOGfarmer (Nov 10, 2010)

odlaw said:


> i have a canopy that is almost 1 mtr wide
> most of the branching was tied to grow sideways for most of its veg life so now i have alot of huge fan leaves across the canopy blocking out light
> heres a couple pics
> 
> ...


 
Motto: If the leaf aint gettin any light, it aint helpinyour plant grow- I'd trim all the leaves not receiving any or much light.


----------



## jewgrow (Nov 10, 2010)

SOGfarmer said:


> Motto: If the leaf aint gettin any light, it aint helpinyour plant grow- I'd trim all the leaves not receiving any or much light.


Stored nutrients in plant tissue cannot help a plant grow whatsoever...I suspect SOG farmers have a high scientific knowledge of botany.


----------



## themoose (Nov 10, 2010)

everything in moderation, Never trim off anything that is growing right out of anybuds, and personally I don't trim leaves that are in the way unless they are yellowed or necrotic because, as stated a Fan leaf has more surface area then a budsite-therefore having a higher photosynthetic value to the plant overall

good luck m8

-moose


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 11, 2010)

ElectricPineapple said:


> probably not, trolls never try and back up there techniques with actual knowledge, much less a grow off


Clearly another person who ignored EVERYTHING I posted LOL Few thousand plants and descrips along with pics dont mean shit clearly.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 11, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Do you not realize that the people arguing for pruning are almost always people that have less than a year experience actually growing? Do you not realize that it's people like you that spread bogus ideas and so called techniques and wow the starter growers with comical claims of high yields and the sort, then actually end up setting them back because they listened. The reason the seasoned growers give a shit and shoot down ideas like pruning fan leaves is to better educate the people that don't know better. Difference between you and them is they have facts and science to support their position. You have *absolutely nothing* to support anything you say other than your claims.
> 
> Here's a thought for you....Seeing how you have a lot of time on your hands and how you religiously defend your 'beliefs", why don't you start a journal with pictures and descriptions to at least try and support a fraction of what you claim instead of yapping away and regurgitating the same thing over and over again.


The people asking about it are usually yes that is correct. People aruging for it are people like me with LOTS of grow experience and also getting very high yields. Do YOU realize that EVERY SINGLE super high yielding grow utilizes pruning in one form or another? Guess not ... I DID posts lots of pics and have posted lots of facts and descriptions but some are just too busy arguing to see this. WTF kind of "proof" do you need. Thats just silly. ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about growing indoors can take a pretty close guess as to how much the plants yield that I posted. 20 inch 5 inch thick cola. Not all that hard. Tray full of them. Easy math for most. WTF is all the proof everyone else is posted ? NIOTHING but lectures and quotes from ancient books.


----------



## jewgrow (Nov 11, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Clearly another person who ignored EVERYTHING I posted LOL Few thousand plants and descrips along with pics dont mean shit clearly.


Pics and description dont...I can show you a picture of my plant and say it got 1 ounce and show somebody and tell them i got 8 whats the difference


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 11, 2010)

jewgrow said:


> Pics and description dont...I can show you a picture of my plant and say it got 1 ounce and show somebody and tell them i got 8 whats the difference


Right so exactly what kind of proof is there on a forum if detailed pictures of individual plants , the room ,trays and every detail about the grow don't count ? Sorry but this is all anyone can provide on a forum end of story. As for my pics you can see the size 18-20 inches and a good 4-5 inches thick solid from top to bottom. A very low guess would be 20 grams dry. The ones I posted averaged 30 grams. UB says it needs to be some super study for him to consider having any validity at all. Simply put that is ridicules. He and others in here dont beleive in SCROG or Lollipo either which are also PROVEN to work. Both require MAJOR defoliation. There is a time and place for it and anyone who doesn't see this is either arrogant or blind. Its not some conspiracy to remove leaves lol. I just dont get this kind of attitude to something that is proven to work and work very very well. ANYONE in doubt of this just needs to grow4-12 plants at per foot and see for themselves what works and what doesnt. In order to fit that many plants in you HAVE to remove leaves no if ands or buts. The reason to stuff that many plants in is to create a VERY full and even canopy of pure buds hence increasing yields. It works just like SCROGing works and LOLLIPOP works. It really isnt as complicated as many of the people in here are making it out to be.


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 11, 2010)

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

Stop arguing like kids and start growing.


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 11, 2010)

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


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 11, 2010)

dlively11 said:


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


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



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


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



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


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

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


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 11, 2010)

dlively11 said:


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


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

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


----------



## Snow Crash (Nov 11, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## jewgrow (Nov 11, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> Too bad ICMag and Grasscity have already presented all the evidence in their defoliation threads. It is unfortunate so much talent winds up over there and here gets so many kids and trolls.
> 
> http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=174163
> 
> ...


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


----------



## sk'mo (Nov 11, 2010)

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

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

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

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


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 11, 2010)

sk'mo said:


> I see photo's of nice plants, very well grown. What I don't see is a plant grown in those conditions that didn't receive any trimming to compare them to. I'm not a 'non-believer', in fact, I'm not even in this argument, all I'm saying is that if these two are going to spend the rest of their lives arguing over this, then they might as well help people, and do a grow off.
> 
> It doesn't matter what growing forum it is, there is tons of conjecture and argument over techniques. Posters (Especially the ones who seem to know their shit.) go on about the science, the pics, their experience, and the importance of dispelling myths and misinformation by educating others. The one thing you rarely, if ever, see is a controlled study by these people that would provide irrefutable proof.
> 
> ...


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

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


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 11, 2010)

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


----------



## OZUT (Nov 11, 2010)

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

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

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


----------



## Snow Crash (Nov 12, 2010)

ElectricPineapple said:


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


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


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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

*Baseline*


*Right after defoliation*


*24 hours later*


*48 hours later*


*72 hours later*


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


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

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


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

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

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


----------



## odlaw (Nov 12, 2010)

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


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 12, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Here's what you're not getting, your setup is very different from everyone else. You're cramming 62 plants into a 4x4 area. I've already said this to you in another thread, you can't compare your "methods" or whatever, across the board. You get the weight you get because of the number of plants you're growing. Almost no other reason. I'm not taking away everything else you do or that you pay attention to, but the biggest reason for your weight is your plant count. To do that many plants, you really wouldn't have any other choice. Your canopy would be too full. If you were to pull 14 grams a plant, that still gives you 2 pounds per tray. Most people don't grow like that, most people don't cram so many plants into a small space like that. Most people don't bother with 64 plants per light. The childish way you argue and the points you try to prove is interpreted by average nubies that are only growing a couple of plants. They'll get screwed if they trim out all their fan leaves. These are the dudes, that are hoping for multiple ounces per plant for it to be worth it to them...Try growing 12 plants like that and see what you get? You know I'm right, but you conveniently leave that out. I still stand by my position that trimming fan leaves will lower your yield and quality. I have science and botanical facts supporting my statement. All you can say is that you get 2 pounds a light and trimming fan leaves is the reason for it. It's not....the number of plants you're growing is the reason.
> 
> As for your claim of over 30 grams a plant in a 64 plant tray, it's just that, nothing more than a claim. Even so, it's nothing special. Doesn't prove shit. A lot of us have grown plants with huge colas. What's your point?
> 
> I'll also say this and I've had this discussion with you before too, don't be such a dick and don't start any drama dude. You don't need to high jack people's threads...You wanna contribute then do so, good info usually comes from discussion, but not the way you do it because you don't discuss anything. You're like a fucking horse with the shades on your eyes that only let you see straight. Then you start bitching like a 2 year old that wants a toy and daddy won't get it for you. Act a little like a grown up man. Show some respect if you wanna be talked to with respect. Besides, you may just come across as a little more intelligent.


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

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


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


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 12, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> Perhaps there is another process you are not considering that will offset this loss of photosynthetic energy when a leaf is removed.
> 
> 
> The largest fan leafs are the furthest distance from their respective stalk.
> ...


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


----------



## Snow Crash (Nov 12, 2010)

odlaw said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 12, 2010)

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


----------



## SOGfarmer (Nov 12, 2010)

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


----------



## SOGfarmer (Nov 12, 2010)

jewgrow said:


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


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


----------



## OZUT (Nov 12, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> You're right. I feel silly for making that claim because your plant and my plant do look surprisingly similar. I should have taken the time to look before making a jerk out of myself. Good call!
> 
> If anything, I think that this proves the removal of the fan leaves has not stunted my plant (despite it looking the way it did two week prior) and this is demonstrated by my defoliated plant looking very similar to a plant that has not been defoliated. Obviously not the same plant, same genetic vigor, etc... So the comparison should be taken with a grain of salt. I did challenge and I did get shown. I can be a big boy and admit that maybe it was a bit presumptuous of me to assume my plant was that much larger. It was late, I was high, you know how that is.
> 
> ...


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

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

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


----------



## jewgrow (Nov 12, 2010)

SOGfarmer said:


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


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

Good signature btw...fuckin turncoat


----------



## Snow Crash (Nov 12, 2010)

ElectricPineapple said:


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


I am not forgetting penetration (what you really mean to reference is leaf transparency). I'm still waiting for someone to place a ppfd meter beneath a leaf to determine the loss of energy. I don't have one so I cannot confirm what you are stating as fact is true. Still, what you are IGNORING are the results. You just don't get it dude. 

Transport... Okay. The large leaves, from stalk to leaf tip, can be a very great distance. To move water and nutrients from the root zone, up the plant, to the ends of these large leafs requires work. Work requires energy. It's physics. The large leafs MUST dedicate a deal of their energy to this transport of water and nutrition so they can remain healthy.

Smaller leaves are MUCH closer to their respective side-branches. This means that less work/energy is required to move the water and nutrition to them. It also means that the energy they do produce requires less over-head, and is better located, because it is closer to the new growths. If what you are saying is true, then the 15% or so of energy lost by removing the larger upper leaf evens out when you consider that less energy is now required just to sustain that leaf.

At the end of the day it's a wash. Defoliated plants and untouched plants both do just fine. Look at the results man. I mean, I cannot make it any more clear.


----------



## OZUT (Nov 12, 2010)

Here's the thing, flowers with a fan leaf attached to it will still grow. They'll still produce, no one is arguing that. But the plant, overall won't be as healthy and the bud will not not grow to it's full potential, neither will the plant. 

Here are a couple of statements made that aren't fully expanded on, both in this thread and several others.

1) Pruning plants has been done for ages. What makes cannabis different? - Pruning has been done for ages, but not removing fan leaves. Topping is a form of pruning. When you top the main stem, you redirect hormones to points below the topped location. I strongly doubt anyone will dispute this FACT. Topping is a form of pruning. You will get the same results with super cropping and with FIMing or other types of training. Also, if anyone has ever grown or knows anything about bonzai trees, you know that on certain species, it's highly recommended to strip the tree of all it's leaves every couple of years. Difference between bonzai trees or trees and cannabis in general, is the tree or bonzai continues to grow and age. A cannabis plant dies at the end of it's cycle (unless you rejuvinate it and reveg it) but very few people do that. Point is, you don't have a years to work with a cannabis plant and the cycle is so short that it doesn't have time to recover and give you what you expect of it. 

2) Scrogger and SOGers all do it and get the results claimed. - This was also mentioned on this thread by Dlively. Scroggers don't trim fan leaves. What they do, is they train their plants in veg to get a lot of tops through a trellis. What they trim is everything below the trellis. They don't discriminate between leaves or flowers. Everything below it goes. They leave everything above the trellis. So what does that tell you? They could very easily train their plants, and instead of trimming out everything below the trellis, they could trim out the leaves above the trellis to get "light penetration" below it to maximize their yield. They don't do that because yield and quality would suffer. Scogging and SOGing is very similar. Their difference is the Scrogger spends the time in veg to get multiple tops and only grow tops and the SOGer skips the veg and goes from clone to flower and grows 1 cola per plant. 

3) Trimming fan leaves is like lollipopping. - It's not. The people that lollipop (trim out the bottom 1/3 of a plant) do so because indoor conditions, as optimum as you can get it, most of the time doesn't allow you to get light that far down in a vertical lighting situation to make it worth growing out the bud down there. Again this goes back to actual pruning. Just as topping redirects hormones to point below the topped location, cutting out stems and growth at the bottom of the plant, redirects those hormones to the other branches. You basically focus your and your plants efforts into the area that has value.

4) You can get over 35grams per plant on a SOG setup by trimming all the fan leaves otherwise it's not possible. - 1st off, I'll call BS on this claim (mostly). Unless you're growing something like Big Bud, you're not going to get that weight growing a single cola going from clone straight to flower. I don't care how dialed in your environment and nutes are. Can anyone (other than Dlively) HONESTLY say they can get over 35 grams on a single cola with absolutely no veg, going from clone straight to flower with a quality OG strain or any quality strain for that matter? This isn't even about removing fan leaves. This is nothing more that an exaggeration.



It's a fact that SOG growers double, triple, quadruple the number of plants in a given space and get less weight per plant, but overall will get more weight in that space. Doesn't mean the quality is better, just means the weight is more. The weight is more simply because you're growing 4-6 times more plants even if you're getting less per plant. Again, this depends on the respective grower and all that other good stuff, but SOG growers mainly grow for weight. Does it mean the bud from a SOG grow won't get you high, no it doesn't. 

Dlively has been turning blue trying to claim SOG growers get the weight and quality because they trim the leaves and they do it for light penetration. Has anyone considered the fact that removing those leaves is not as much about light penetration as it is about not creating a mold situation and allowing for airflow? Could you imagine a 4x4 area with 64 plants all loaded with leaves? There would be zero air movement and just an invite for pests. The benefit you get from removing those leaves is not the benefit that's being claimed by people removing the leaves. Now for those about to jump on me for having said this last thing, let me explain a little more. I'm not arguing both positions. What I'm trying to say is that removing the leaves is a sacrifice you make to get a benefit from elsewhere. The sacrifice is full bud potential and the benefit is you're able to grow more bud in a smaller area. It's a sacrifice because you lose something to gain something else. It's not pure benefit as people are trying to make it out to be. 

At the end of the day, growing style is a preference and dependent on individual preferences and limitations, or lack of. What people like Dlively (not singling you out dude) are trying to do is make it sound that removing big bad fan leaves, gives you deeper light penetration and result in bigger better yield. That's not accurate. But whatever makes you feel good about what you do...


----------



## Tamerlane (Nov 12, 2010)

I let the plant tell me what to prune. If the leaf is less than 50% green I prune it (As stated in Jorge Cervantes Growers Bible). You know the leaf is ready to be taken off the plant because its super easy to pull from the plant... comes off like butter... if on the other hand I pull a leaf and it does not want to come off then I leave it on and recheck it a day or 2 later to see if the leaf turned more yellow and/or its easier to pull off. 

If the leaf is green then dont prune it. Its creating energy for the plant silly. The plant tells you what it can and cannot use effectively instead of the other way around  

T


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 12, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Take notes Dlively, this is how you have an intelligent conversation and come to a conclusion, whatever that conclusion may be.
> 
> Also, as mentioned above about the light penetration, almost 80% - 85% of the light that hits a leaf, penetrates through it to the next leaf. It doesn't just bounce off it or get blocked. So even the leaves that are being "blocked" by that big bad fan leaf are still getting light. And for those that want to argue that the flowers themselves need light to hit them, then rest assured that the fan leaf is not preventing that either. Again, scientific, proven, experimented, solid concrete fact. Just because human eyes can't see that light, doesn't mean it's not there.
> 
> Btw, I'm done arguing with you Dlively...post however you wanna post man, I just think you should cool down a little if you wanna be taken serious and not treated like a troll


Predictable and expected. So you are wrong but now you are right somehow ? LOL. okay. You actu like Mini Me , Mini Uncle Ben. You are just reusing his material over and over now. Only ones acting like trolls in this entire thread were you and UB. Both of you argue very indirectly and skirt around the issues being presented like a politician at times. 

I spent countless posts posting good legit info an had to deal with mostly people taking a sh*t all over them. Had to listen to countless posts about "pictures dont prove anything" "I believe my books not my eyes". "He must be a liar trying to prove his BS on a pot forum " etc etc etc I stated many many times that there was a time and place for leaf removal. A couple posts before you I specifically went over how a plant by itself wouldn't yield more with leaves removed but rather it was the high numbers you are able to achieve with removing them that give the higher yields. Then you come and post more insults and name calling towards me and even try and argue the very thing I just posted that you agreed on. Bizarre to say the least. It makes so little sense it is hard to write it and have it make sense. Luckily people can just read it for themselves and have a good old laugh at your expense =) you arent arguing with me you are just arguing. 

FYI pay more attention in threads before you going around blindly bashing people. I already posted that a single leaf may not make a huge difference but with zero leaf removal you are going through MANY layers of leaves. By the time you get to the boom the leaves can be blocking 90% or more of the usable light.Hence why YOU have popcorn buds and I dont =)

Please troll on and argue about something else we agree on lol


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 12, 2010)

OZUT said:


> 4) You can get over 35grams per plant on a SOG setup by trimming all the fan leaves otherwise it's not possible. - 1st off, I'll call BS on this claim (mostly). Unless you're growing something like Big Bud, you're not going to get that weight growing a single cola going from clone straight to flower. I don't care how dialed in your environment and nutes are. Can anyone (other than Dlively) HONESTLY say they can get over 35 grams on a single cola with absolutely no veg, going from clone straight to flower with a quality OG strain or any quality strain for that matter? This isn't even about removing fan leaves. This is nothing more that an exaggeration.
> 
> 
> Dlively has been turning blue trying to claim SOG growers get the weight and quality because they trim the leaves and they do it for light penetration. Has anyone considered the fact that removing those leaves is not as much about light penetration as it is about not creating a mold situation and allowing for airflow? Could you imagine a 4x4 area with 64 plants all loaded with leaves? There would be zero air movement and just an invite for pests. The benefit you get from removing those leaves is not the benefit that's being claimed by people removing the leaves. Now for those about to jump on me for having said this last thing, let me explain a little more. I'm not arguing both positions. What I'm trying to say is that removing the leaves is a sacrifice you make to get a benefit from elsewhere. The sacrifice is full bud potential and the benefit is you're able to grow more bud in a smaller area. It's a sacrifice because you lose something to gain something else. It's not pure benefit as people are trying to make it out to be.
> ...



You start making sense and then you go back to not making any, oh well. As for the 35 grams per plant. I stated I averaged 30 grams per plant not 35 and that was ONLY with Chronic White Widow AKA Fruity Chronic. Yes its and extremely high yielder in fact I can more off it then Big Bud. I also never stated I went right from clone to bloom. Mine usually veg for a good week under a 600 watt prior to going to bloom room and are , as stated, 6-8 inches when switched. They are taking 1000 PPM nutes before going to bloom as well. I can still get 2.5 to 3 lbs with other high quality strains as well. Cheese, Super Skunk, Sweet Tooth, Bubble Gum and a few others which is closer to 20 grams per plant. If you are going to try and argue about other peoples posts at least get your facts straight as to what they posted in the first place. 


Seems apparent you have never done a full SOG. Light penetration IS the huge factor. It couldnt be easier to see when you grow in this fashion. Yes 85% of the light goes right through the "big bad fan leaf" only 15% lost so why bother? Not that 15% loss isnt bad enough but there are MANY layers of leaves to go though to even get to the center of the plant in a full grow like this. Three leaves and you have just lost 50% of your usable light. I dont know about you but I like to grow under 1000 watts not 500 watts. Thing is for a full SOG you would be choking off a whole lot more then that to much of the plant. The bottom third would get between 15-30% of the usable light with no leaf removal. Kind of hurts yields a touch. Having a stationary HPS light is a huge part of the problem.

You really might want to actually have experience with something you are arguing about if you want to come across as intelligent but maybe that is just me. *shrug*


----------



## Brick Top (Nov 12, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> Transport... Okay. *The large leaves, from stalk to leaf tip, can be a very great distance. To move water and nutrients from the root zone, up the plant, to the ends of these large leafs requires work. Work requires energy. It's physics. The large leafs MUST dedicate a deal of their energy to this transport of water and nutrition so they can remain healthy.*



What you do not understand is leaf hydraulic conductance in the whole plant system. If you did understand such things you would not have said what you did. Your inaccurate beliefs and growing practices cause breaks and choke points in the hydraulic system in the plants that move nutrient rich moisture and essential carbohydrates and other elements throughout the plant. 

You simply do not understand what actually causes the moisture and nutrients and various elements to move the distances you referred to. It is not plant energy being used. It is transpiration where the loss of water through evaporation in plants, especially through stomata draws, pulls, hydraulically pumps a corresponding amount of water up through the roots and up through plants in a process in which the water vapor escapes through the plant via its stomata and lenticels into its external environment, the atmosphere, the air. 

You also ignore, or totally fail to understand, the extreme importance of the linkage between plant hydraulics and the extremely important gas exchange that needs to occur. When you limit or stop one, the exact same happens to the other. 

To put it into a form you might be able to understand, if you had a small bucket of water with a rag half in the water and half out of the water, water would wick up through the rag and the water in the portion of the rag that is out of the bucket would evaporate and that would draw more water up from the bucket, up through the rag to also be evaporated until the small bucket of water would be empty, it would be dry. The rag would not be expending any energy whatsoever, it would be simple evaporation, which basically is what plant transpiration is. 

A plants system is far more intricate and elaborate but it is still the same basic function. What moisture is drawn out of a plant through transpiration draws more moisture up through the plant.

What you consider to be unnecessarily used energy, or wasted energy, is, in simple plain language, actually much needed hydraulic pumping stations powered by transpiration performing highly important tasks to keep the flow/movement/relocation of nutrient rich moisture and stored carbohydrates and other elements maximized throughout the entire plant.

Your beliefs totally ignore things like the basics of phloem transport, the generation of hydraulic pressure gradient in collection phloem, the maintenance of hydraulic pressure gradient in transport phloem, the manipulation of hydraulic pressure gradient release phloem throughout the entire plant ..... and you also ignore, or do not know of, much, much more. Those functions, along with others, rely on the functions of the very leaves that you believe to be not only unimportant but also a total waste of energy and objects that block light rays. You wrongly believe that energy is used, wasted in your words, to transport, to move, to relocate moisture and nutrients, starches/carbohydrates from what you like to give the impression are extremely long distances from one location on a plant to another location on a plant requiring the use of large amounts of energy that could better be used for other more productive purposes. But in fact those elements are drawn to the various areas they are needed and used through natural transpiration. 

Those functions rely on leaf transpiration to draw moisture nutrients/sugars/carbohydrates up through plants, all the way from the plants roots right up to the very top of the highest leaf/stem or cola. When you remove leaves you highly limit a plants capability to do that. You greatly damage, by reducing the size and capabilities of, or totally removing, the plants natural hydraulic system. 

Plants are extremely intricate structures where each separate part, each separate but highly interconnected function, no matter how minor you may personally happen to believe them to be, are highly important and extremely reliant on each other and the reduction of any capabilities, or the total loss/removal of any of the many, many extremely important interconnected functions, is highly detrimental to the proper function and maximum functionality of the plant as a whole. 

I fully realize that all of that is way over your head, and I fully realize that you will refuse to accept those facts, so this is my last comment on the subject because I will waste no more time on someone who absolutely refuses to accept scientifically proven botanical facts. But realize it or not, accept it or not, your personally chosen beliefs have just been proven to be both incorrect and inferior to what others, like Uncle Ben, have preached for ages and ages and what others, including myself, have also said.

Unlike your self concocted and or personally chosen beliefs, the above is actual botany, put in as simple of language as possible and still be able to explain how plants actually work.

Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## Snow Crash (Nov 12, 2010)

I understand what you are saying, thank you for so kindly insulting my intelligence. Shows just how much of a sandy vagine you are. See, that's me outright saying it. You = Sandy Vagine.

Portland Oregon. Come find some. I'm waiting. Or you could not insult me and stop acting a troll.

I understand how capillary motion works by using molecular bonds. Still, a larger plant uses more energy to keep itself healthy than a smaller plant. You'd have to be completely retarded to think otherwise. 

I spoke about cellular health along with transport. Producing cells, keeping cells happy, this requires energy. If plants didn't need energy for transport, or energy for cellular maintenance and production, then what the fuck is all this energy for???

I have a degree in Information Technology, so my mindset is on networks, and I have *gorgeous* defoliated plants with this mindset. Like yourself, I don't have a degree in botany, but I also don't claim to be an expert. Maybe my mental exercise wasn't perfect, maybe it was closer than you're forcing others to believe with your compelling walls of text are. Maybe...

Site everything you want, anything you want, it doesn't change the fact that what the other side espouses *DOES NOT CORRELATE* with the *VERY OBVIOUS RESULTS*.

I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again, you are using a *HYPOTHESIS*!!! 

I have provided the *RESULTS* of the *EXPERIMENT* and the *CONCLUSION* does not match your *HYPOTHESIS*. 

You'd think someone with a brain like yours would be able to examine the evidence. In fact, I think you do see the evidence and avoid acknowledging it, and I think you are doing this to purposefully mislead growers. I think it's rotten and I think its a shwoog ass move that'd get you popped if someone could prove it. The only reason to ignore this simple fact, to claim you're still right when the evidence proves otherwise, is pure narcissism. Eventually you'll figure that out.

I have evidence. You have scientific theory. Science is theory, not law, and any scientist that deals in laws and "facts" has very little to work with. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge, not regurgitating ideas that don't match up with results.

You consistently fail to recognize the results, or provide compelling physical evidence that would support the written theories. Over and over again you site *your* science, you claim my plants _should_ be totally fucked, and yet they aren't... You have no explanation as to why!!!

Where are these destroyed plants that have been defoliated? 
Where are the masses of people who have done it and know that it doesn't work???
What I find are people who have done it, love it, and continue to do it berated and insulted (if even intelligently by innuendo) by bunch of haters who don't do it, hate it, and will never try it.

And you trust the haters? You are a hater? JFC... 

Defoliation works. It very, very obviously works. Evidence is readily available for rational people to make up their minds on it. If it didn't work then all of us wouldn't be doing it. Perhaps you should take a step off that high horse and come to the conclusion that you don't know everything and that something is going on you don't understand.

You're going on ignore anyway. I'm so very tired of you and it's not like I need your advice. My garden is perfect the way I'm running it without you, your theory or advice.

I'm also going to remove myself from this thread. Probably good for me to take a break from this place all together. Too many ass wipes around this place for me to try and be civil with.


----------



## OZUT (Nov 13, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> You start making sense and then you go back to not making any, oh well. As for the 35 grams per plant. I stated I averaged 30 grams per plant not 35 and that was ONLY with Chronic White Widow AKA Fruity Chronic. Yes its and extremely high yielder in fact I can more off it then Big Bud. I also never stated I went right from clone to bloom. Mine usually veg for a good week under a 600 watt prior to going to bloom room and are , as stated, 6-8 inches when switched. They are taking 1000 PPM nutes before going to bloom as well. I can still get 2.5 to 3 lbs with other high quality strains as well. Cheese, Super Skunk, Sweet Tooth, Bubble Gum and a few others which is closer to 20 grams per plant. If you are going to try and argue about other peoples posts at least get your facts straight as to what they posted in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've got no clue man...I'll do my thing and you just do yours


----------



## SOGfarmer (Nov 13, 2010)

jewgrow said:


> I do not have years of growing experience.
> 
> So why are you sharing your input? And thinking that you're right?


----------



## SOGfarmer (Nov 13, 2010)

jewgrow said:


> I do not have years of growing experience, but I have plenty of experience in the highly competitive marijuana trade.


?????? lol


----------



## SOGfarmer (Nov 13, 2010)

Growing the same clone both ways, i get much more grams per watt when heavily pruned and or topped. That's that.


----------



## Brick Top (Nov 13, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again, you are using a *HYPOTHESIS*!!!.



I said I was done with this thread but I do have to make one last statement. Just because you wish to attempt to define the facts I have presented, facts that have been scientifically proven, as being nothing more that "a *HYPOTHESIS*"it will never transform the proven facts into being "a *HYPOTHESIS*" and regardless of how many times you repeat your self created non-scientifically proven personal belief it will never become a scientifically proven fact. Never.

Oh ... and what was with the "Portland Oregon. Come find some. I'm waiting" thing supposed to be .... some kind of typical hollow internet tough guy threat or something? Pardon me while I take a moment to lock my front door and my kitchen door and my five sliding glass doors on my 2,750 sq. ft. home for fear that you might show up here tonight and teach me some sort of lesson. 

Oh heck .... I know I don't have to bother to lock any of my doors. I'm sure that you couldn't afford the price of a Greyhound Bus ticket to N.C. anyway so I know I'm safe.

I am finished with attempting to teach puppies to sit and stay and roll over when all they are interested in doing is chasing their tails and licking their butts and balls so if you want to troll me with more typical hollow internet tough guy threats .... have at it. You can come off as tough as you like to all your little minions who know as little as you do. I am positive they will be highly impressed by your typical hollow long distance internet tough guy routine.

To paraphrase what "Montjoy" said to "King Harry" in "Henry V," And so fare thee well: Thou never shalt hear Brick Top any more, in this thread.


----------



## jewgrow (Nov 13, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Here's the thing, flowers with a fan leaf attached to it will still grow. They'll still produce, no one is arguing that. But the plant, overall won't be as healthy and the bud will not not grow to it's full potential, neither will the plant.
> 
> Here are a couple of statements made that aren't fully expanded on, both in this thread and several others.
> 
> ...


This SHOULD be the end of this post. You just summed up the whole entire thread. I don't think much else needs to be said but it's semi-fun to argue with close minded people. So SOG farmer, I am contributing because while yes, its true I don't have YEARS of growing experience, I still know what I am talking about. I am an environmental horticulture/turfgrass major so I do have a basic knowledge of plants. I pick up knowledge relatively quickly, so I do not need the years you claim I need to make a post of my opinion on a marijuana cultivation forum. Dlivley stfu about uncle ben already he hasn't posted for about half of this thread so yeah....OZUT said it and said it right...get over it.


----------



## SOGfarmer (Nov 13, 2010)

lol. yes you do.


----------



## ElectricPineapple (Nov 14, 2010)

ah! thank you brick for explaining how water is moved through out the plant. i was about to post it when read your post on it. couldnt have said it better myself. 
and to Snow, ya at one point in time, everything we are saying WAS a hypothesis, but through scientific process and experimentation, it was proven to be correct and it is all based on what we KNOW about plants and botany. we arent just pulling this out of our asses to sound smart. Go read a book about botany, and then see if you still think you are right. Dont come back posting that what we know about botany doesnt pertain to cannabis since its illegal, and there has been no formal research on it. thats the most BS line i have ever heard, and i hear it all the time from people arguing about techniques that contradict simple botany. botany pertains to the processes of ALL plants. 

I now see that this is a futile effort, but please do us all a favor, and leave your technique to yourself. if yu think it works, then fine. but dont try to persuade people that raping your plants is better for them.


----------



## GibbsIt89 (Nov 14, 2010)

this is rediculous i dont even want to read this wow lol.. should i prune them or not, this being throughout the grow.

from my experience on one plant i topped it then LST'd it and had 4 huge tops i had stretched out horizontally.. the middle grew out and everything, i pruned this plant throughout and it grew awsome. but i dont have a yeild comparison becuz i ended up having to get rid of it due to spider mites (had lots of other plants growing so i sacrificed it)... i have pruned 2 autogrowers and harvested a quarter off each, not that it really matters in comparison to anything, plus they are autogrowers but i pruned them during flowering (first plants ever harvested).

i am curious whether i should or shouldnt, i like the idea of pruning to let other shoots grow, thus creating bigger budds in the end? (more potential main colas?) there can be many ways to study this so it all depends on how long u veg and if u LST or SOG or what.. etc etc. but generally if u prune a few once a week i dont see the harm in it... when flowering tho i would understand that you dont want to prune becuz they are the "sunleaves" that take in as much sun as possible. hense the idea to LST or SOG, so that you get the most out of the light/plant.. or you would have to provide side lighting. so this being in veg i guess i state my question.. i figure its fine to prune at the beginning to get your plant set up for what you want.. to keep it clean and etc. SOG probly dont want to prune after a certain point becuz u dont veg for long.. LST you might want to prune a bunch at the beginning to get those shoots growing and stretched out and have new growth before you flower so its evenly spaced for each cola. either way the idea is to get the cola the attention when flowering, thus you need "sunleaves" but also dont want to block other potential colas of equal individual yeild.

answered my own question haha.. sorry i didnt read any of the important stuff on the thread, just the BS, but i guess that not really my fault lol.. everyone experiments if you want to get into it then do that on your own time with your own proof.. pretty simple.


----------



## Vento (Nov 14, 2010)

fuck ! ...are we still talking about this ?

I have an idea ... All the people FOR pruneing ... prune ....and all the people AGAINST it dont prune ... Agree to disagree and move along .

I'm with the people who say its personal choice ... the argument is solid on both sides ... ( Even if one side has not been documented by some egghead ) just do your own thing and get the results that echo your actions 

Heres a tip ... increase the peace ... love eachother ... and be happy ( Sounds a bit stoner hippy i know ... but lets give it a go )

How about we stop the talking .... Come together .... and do a controlled experiment .... same strain same enviroment ( as close as it can be ) and lets see the results ?


After reading this thread for a while now i decided to try for myself on my current grow ...i will be happy to post results and compaire with others results 

Just sayin ...


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 14, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> Is that what I posted...


IC Mag and Grasscity? Yeah, now there's two high tech and honorable websites. The former hawking knockoffs of knockoff genetics with all the bullshit that goes along with the seed biz (i.e. BOG, Rezdog, Mr. Nice, etc.), the latter site who has some self annointed Pot god (and enablers) knocking off some of my work, trying to pass it off as their own. http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-marijuana-growing/215941-never-ending-abuse-phosphorous-enhance-flowering.html

I've posted to about 10 different cannabis forums, from the smallest membership to the largest (OG), for over 15 years, and they're all have pretty much the same tenets and feel.

If you want to know what a botanist thinks about butchering cannabis, all you need to do is check out one of the greats - R.C. Clarke's Marijuana Botany.

Happy gardening,
UB


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 14, 2010)

Bricktop and Uncle Ben are birds of a feather. Atleast Uncle Ben isnt quite as insulting. I can not even begin to imagine why he came at you like he did after your very informative post. another grower just hiding behind his books and clearly jealous in some form or another even if he himself doesnt realize it. No other excuse to act this way. FYI they came into these threads talking the same way from the get go hence my very frank posts to them. 




Snow Crash said:


> Site everything you want, anything you want, it doesn't change the fact that what the other side espouses *DOES NOT CORRELATE* with the *VERY OBVIOUS RESULTS*.
> 
> I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again, you are using a *HYPOTHESIS*!!!
> 
> ...


clap clap clap clap clap


----------



## dlively11 (Nov 14, 2010)

ElectricPineapple said:


> ah! thank you brick for explaining how water is moved through out the plant. i was about to post it when read your post on it. couldnt have said it better myself.
> and to Snow, ya at one point in time, everything we are saying WAS a hypothesis, but through scientific process and experimentation, it was proven to be correct and it is all based on what we KNOW about plants and botany. we arent just pulling this out of our asses to sound smart. Go read a book about botany, and then see if you still think you are right. Dont come back posting that what we know about botany doesnt pertain to cannabis since its illegal, and there has been no formal research on it. thats the most BS line i have ever heard, and i hear it all the time from people arguing about techniques that contradict simple botany. botany pertains to the processes of ALL plants.
> 
> I now see that this is a futile effort, but please do us all a favor, and leave your technique to yourself. if you think it works, then fine. but dont try to persuade people that raping your plants is better for them.


Gotta love mindless people who think a one dimensional book means everything for growing and experiments / results mean nothing.... you guys are really coming off like a joke now no offense. NONE of these so called scientifically proven botanical facts in any shape way or form are taking into account a full sog grow period. None of them take into account a stationary HPS light and a seriously crowded grow. Anyone who thinks there isnt a time and a place for pruning and leaf removal is blinded by their own ignornace/arrogance. You guys are like 1970s Nascar drivers telling present day Formula One drivers how they should drive and win the race. Yeah you guys know about growing/driving but have presented ZERO knowledge of the type of growing we are referring to. Just stop making yourselves look so bad it is embarrassing.


----------



## Vento (Nov 14, 2010)

*Hey Guys ... sorry to just jump in like this ... but i just need to ask a favour *



Hi ya UB ... your message box is full !

I just wondered if you could come and have a look and maybe shed some light on this topic for me ?

I Value your opinion and would love to hear your thoughts on it 

https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/384419-little-tip-i-herd-anyone.html#post4902574



*Sorry guys .... Ok back to the topic *


----------

