# Pruning - When do you take all the leaves off?



## John Stevens (Sep 17, 2010)

I've done a few grows before and I'm currently on Day 30 Flower. I always leave every fan leaf the plant grows and tuck it underneath the canopy to ensure it doesnt cover the budsite as you can see in the picture.

In the second picture it shows someone whos on day 48 flowering, has took all the fan leaves off and its still going well (he is using cfls)

*When do you take fan leaves off and why do they do it?*


----------



## Total Head (Sep 17, 2010)

it's a matter of debate. i personally think it's extremely counterprouctive. what's the point of letting more light through when you have removed the main solar panels that receive the light? it's like paralyzing a man and gifting him roller skates, or some more fitting analogy. i'm stoned. you get my point.


----------



## Johnney Herbz (Sep 17, 2010)

Yeah well when you have a bush like this, its hard to decide to prune or not.

I don't think i will.


----------



## tidus255 (Sep 17, 2010)

those are some nice bonsai trees Johnney. I have cut all fan leaves during flush it seem to help the lower bud sites swell and ripen up.
But if your like me and just smoke on da juicy colas I would leave them on there you have plenty of light hitting your plant anyways.


----------



## lime73 (Sep 17, 2010)

Leaves provide the buds with food to grow.
Taking them off will allow light to buds...but why would you?


----------



## odbsmydog (Sep 17, 2010)

dont cut the leaves till after you harvest unless they are yellow, deseased or haning down against the ground or something like that.


----------



## lime73 (Sep 17, 2010)

odbsmydog said:


> dont cut the leaves till after you harvest unless they are yellow, deseased or haning down against the ground or something like that.


I Agree 100%! Keep em Green...til the END!


----------



## Ol'Skool (Sep 17, 2010)

John Stevens said:


> I've done a few grows before and I'm currently on Day 30 Flower. I always leave every fan leaf the plant grows and tuck it underneath the canopy to ensure it doesnt cover the budsite as you can see in the picture.
> 
> In the second picture it shows someone whos on day 48 flowering, has took all the fan leaves off and its still going well (he is using cfls)
> 
> *When do you take fan leaves off and why do they do it?*


Look at it this mate, a Grower leaves the leafs on and a CULTIVATOR cuts them off very periodically, all of them!
Cultivating is very rewarding but also very time consuming.

Personally i cut mine every day or two. This is the difference between average yields and excellent yields.


----------



## mcpurple (Sep 17, 2010)

more leaf means more bud morelight to a bud will not make it bigger, more light to the leaves will


----------



## OZUT (Sep 17, 2010)

This should get interesting.


----------



## mcpurple (Sep 17, 2010)

OZUT said:


> This should get interesting.


why it is a simple fact and only takes common sense to know that a plant needs it leafs to produce its fruits. do you see apple,pair,orange,cherry farmers removing theri leaf to get light to the fruit NO, why because its the leafs that make the fruit big and healthy if they were in the light all the time it would be bad for the fruits. growing marijuana is mostly COMMON SENSE


----------



## Howard Stern (Sep 17, 2010)

Oh yeah this will get ugly! LOL I leave all my leaves on my plant, they will funnel all the energy up to the buds. You answered your question with the second pic you posted! That second plant looks like shit IMO! leve them on there or you will get less and shitty bud IMO


----------



## OZUT (Sep 17, 2010)

mcpurple said:


> why it is a simple fact and only takes common sense to know that a plant needs it leafs to produce its fruits. do you see apple,pair,orange,cherry farmers removing theri leaf to get light to the fruit NO, why because its the leafs that make the fruit big and healthy if they were in the light all the time it would be bad for the fruits. growing marijuana is mostly COMMON SENSE


All I said is this is about to get interesting. I didn't say anything about pruning or not pruning


----------



## cephalopod (Sep 17, 2010)

Total Head said:


> it's a matter of debate. i personally think it's extremely counterprouctive. what's the point of letting more light through when you have removed the main solar panels that receive the light? it's like paralyzing a man and gifting him roller skates, or some more fitting analogy. i'm stoned. you get my point.


 Well brake my legs and buy me a bicycle.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 17, 2010)

Ol'Skool said:


> Look at it this mate, a Grower leaves the leafs on and a CULTIVATOR cuts them off very periodically, all of them!
> Cultivating is very rewarding but also very time consuming.
> 
> Personally i cut mine every day or two. This is the difference between average yields and excellent yields.


LOL

have fun with your eighth


----------



## Spanishfly (Sep 18, 2010)

The leaves will drop on their own when they are ready.


----------



## Subliminator (Sep 18, 2010)

Don't you need the leaves for the last two weeks of flowering.


----------



## lime73 (Sep 18, 2010)

Subliminator said:


> Don't you need the leaves for the last two weeks of flowering.


I'd say so!!!


----------



## honda5150 (Sep 18, 2010)

leaves feed the bud, end of story. The more leave, more yield with other variables included, but overall, more yield.


----------



## reggaerican (Sep 18, 2010)

i think pruning fan leaves durring flower is about the worst thing you can do to a plant.. some people do it so light will reach the lower buds, well i say if your concerned your not getting enough light to the lower branches cut off the whole darn branch!! the tops will get bigger if you do and way less trimming later..


----------



## purplehazin (Sep 19, 2010)

Ol'Skool said:


> Look at it this mate, a Grower leaves the leafs on and a CULTIVATOR cuts them off very periodically, all of them!
> Cultivating is very rewarding but also very time consuming.
> 
> *Personally i cut mine every day or two. This is the difference between average yields and excellent yields*.


You're correct. Cutting off the leaves prematurely guarantees average yields, while leaving them on provides excellent yields. Get with the program.


----------



## Dinosaur Bone (Sep 19, 2010)

When do *I* take leaves off??? Never. I let the plant decide which ones it doesn't need. Keeps things simple.


----------



## honda5150 (Sep 19, 2010)

Agreed, well said. 



reggaerican said:


> i think pruning fan leaves durring flower is about the worst thing you can do to a plant.. some people do it so light will reach the lower buds, well i say if your concerned your not getting enough light to the lower branches cut off the whole darn branch!! the tops will get bigger if you do and way less trimming later..


----------



## honda5150 (Sep 19, 2010)

correct, let nature take its course, even if they are crinkled, let them fall off. Those leaves help yield and feed the buds.... happy growing bud..



Dinosaur Bone said:


> When do *I* take leaves off??? Never. I let the plant decide which ones it doesn't need. Keeps things simple.


----------



## anomolies (Sep 19, 2010)

the plant with the fan leaves taken off looks pathetic. Tiny ass buds. Does this question even need to be asked?


----------



## Kevdogg5555 (Sep 19, 2010)

you want to keep yellowing drooping leaves because those act like a liver, take absorb in toxins and excess nutrients so your nugs dont get burnt from ferts. Let them stay until they are "dead"


----------



## stubbornstoner013 (Sep 19, 2010)

Common Sense huh?!?! Common sense could just as easily tell me that the plant is wasting its energy and nutrients to maintain the dying leaf rather than generating a lil extra energy w/ the lil bit of green its got left (if it has any). Green= active chlorophyll = energy. Yellow= dead chlorophyll=no energy=blocking light for green leaves below. Or is my common sense-orator broken again?!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 20, 2010)

Total Head said:


> what's the point of letting more light through when you have removed the main solar panels that receive the light? it's like paralyzing a man and gifting him roller skates, or some more fitting analogy.


LOL



> the plant with the fan leaves taken off looks pathetic. Tiny ass buds. *Does this question even need to be asked?*


Apparently so. 

With every new crop of newbies comes this same old tired issue. If they understood botany as opposed to gravitating to "popular opinion" of cannabis forums, this subject would never arise. Having said that, see the infamous Lollipopping thread (aka do a Search).

Cut me off and call me "Shorty", 
UB


----------



## canefan (Sep 20, 2010)

Seems as though we visit this subject all too often here. There is so much misinformation floating around along with many many ways that people do things. First of all why would you pull, trim or cut something that you just spent months to make bushy? I don't know if I can make the correct analogy but here goes: You take a clone, do you cut all the leaves off of it? No you'd kill the cutting. The cutting needs these leaves in order to have the energy to grow roots. Well, it is not the exact same process to make buds but it is close to being the same. If you take the leaves off how do you have the energy to make buds. The roots transport nutes to the buds but derive their energy from the leaves along with nutes from the leaves as they are being used up (hence yellowing fan leaves during flower).
Taking this one step further, when you harvest your girls do you think they are dead at once? NO they are still alive during the drying process, dying slowly over time as they dry and have no more energy to support themselves. During this time the buds use the stored energy in the stem and leaves to continually produce resins in the hope that they will fulfill their purpose of reproducing seeds.
During the drying and curing is when you have a chance to make the final impact on your labors. This is the time where the final chemical reactions occur which add the final potency to your bud, also to the smoothness of your smoke.
This is the reason whenever possible I harvest the entire plant, hang it whole complete with leaves until dry. I trim them once dried and place in jars to cure as whole braches or with as much branch as I have space in jars for. I believe that if you have tried this method which has been used for literally thousands of years you won't go back to other methods or techniques.
Happy Growing


----------



## anomolies (Sep 20, 2010)

lol I did a search and found posts/pictures of FDD doing the lollipop method.


----------



## OZUT (Sep 20, 2010)

canefan said:


> when you harvest your girls do you think they are dead at once? NO they are still alive during the drying process, dying slowly over time as they dry and have no more energy to support themselves. During this time the buds use the stored energy in the stem and leaves to continually produce resins in the hope that they will fulfill their purpose of reproducing seeds.
> Happy Growing



Actually this isn't correct. Once you chop, the plant's done. Your buds aren't going to continue developing off of the stored nutes in the leaf. The change in color you're seeing is the chlorophyl breaking down. 

I normally trim off the bottom 1/3 about a week or 2 into flower because everything down there isn't going to develop to my liking and will take of a few select fan leaves from the rest of the plant but won't go as far as lollipopping or excessive and continues trimming


----------



## irieie (Sep 20, 2010)

the question is if the leaf photosynthesizes more efficiently than the flower why would you remove the leaf to get more light to the bud? check out this article:ttp://feelingsandflowers.com/262/photosynthesis-and-how-it-works/


----------



## jewgrow (Sep 20, 2010)

anomolies said:


> lol I did a search and found posts/pictures of FDD doing the lollipop method.


What is your point..?


----------



## anomolies (Sep 21, 2010)

jewgrow said:


> What is your point..?


it's just funny cus his plants are huge. wonder if he still does it, that was 2 years ago.


----------



## plaguedog (Sep 21, 2010)

Oh boy...here we go again.....


----------



## kevin (Sep 21, 2010)

Ol'Skool said:


> Look at it this mate, a Grower leaves the leafs on and a CULTIVATOR cuts them off very periodically, all of them!
> Cultivating is very rewarding but also very time consuming.
> 
> Personally i cut mine every day or two. This is the difference between average yields and excellent yields.


i thought a cultivator was a farm tool used to break up the soil before planting?


----------



## harinama (Sep 21, 2010)

I defoliate all through my grow. Each time a budding tip is 1"+, i pull the fan leaf. In my tests i noticed no difference in bud size with fan or without. I do, however notice a HUGE increase in light down into the plant, and thus much better/thicker buds. On top of this, with defoliation, i actually end up pulling MORE leaves overall than before, so the plant is actually MORE vigorous. Also, i am able to use 1/2 strength nutes, saving lots of $$ with no fan leaves to suck them up.

my tests indicate that fan leaves help get the budding joints started, and provide a buffer for nutes. Otherwise they are just shading out the buds. Isn't getting light to the buds what it is all about?

Thus my tests go against conventional wisdom, and i'll happily continue to defoliate all the way through my grows. I highly recommend that you DONT do it, i mean what will you do with all those extra buds????


----------



## John Stevens (Sep 21, 2010)

Interesting anyone to back that up!


----------



## rastakolnikov (Sep 21, 2010)

i'll back him up 
Word of mouth is much better than proven 'science'


----------



## RohanVD86 (Sep 21, 2010)

Total Head said:


> it\'s a matter of debate. i personally think it\'s extremely counterprouctive. what\'s the point of letting more light through when you have removed the main solar panels that receive the light? it\'s like paralyzing a man and gifting him roller skates, or some more fitting analogy. i\'m stoned. you get my point.


All the leaves absorb sunlight. Put one outside and watch how the leaves stick straight up like \"AHHHHHH YEEESSSSSS!\" I love it, they\'re so pretty


----------



## purplehazin (Sep 22, 2010)

harinama said:


> I defoliate all through my grow. Each time a budding tip is 1"+, i pull the fan leaf.* In my tests i noticed no difference in bud size with fan or without.* I do, however notice a HUGE increase in light down into the plant, and* thus much better/thicker buds*. On top of this, with defoliation, i actually end up pulling MORE leaves overall than before, so the plant is actually MORE vigorous. Also, i am able to use 1/2 strength nutes, saving lots of $$ with no fan leaves to suck them up.
> 
> my tests indicate that fan leaves help get the budding joints started, and provide a buffer for nutes. Otherwise they are just shading out the buds. Isn't getting light to the buds what it is all about?
> 
> Thus my tests go against conventional wisdom, and i'll happily continue to defoliate all the way through my grows. I highly recommend that you DONT do it, i mean what will you do with all those extra buds????


Uhh... You're contradicting yourself.


----------



## CrazyBudz (Sep 22, 2010)

if the plant didnt need or wasnt using the leaf it would allow the leaf to die.....


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 22, 2010)

CrazyBudz said:


> if the plant didnt need or wasnt using the leaf it would allow the leaf to die.....


That's true. Botanically it's a CO2 flag processor. When a leaf does not process above a certain PPM level of CO2, the plant somehow knows it is non-productive and proceeds to drop it....initial symptoms being necrotic dots, yellowing, etc. and finally total leaf necrosis. A plant/tree will also drop a leaf if is under severe stress i.e. drought.

UB


----------



## mcpurple (Sep 22, 2010)

i cant believe this thread is still going, its obvious that a plant needs its leafs to produce big buds. like i said do you see apple farmers,orange farmers, any farmer removing the leafs to allow light to the fruits NO, why cuz the leafs are what gives the plant energy to bud.


----------



## AKRevo47 (Sep 22, 2010)

I cut my leaves a day or two, sometimes 3, right before harvest, especially when giving them extra darkness time. Helps with the trimming and rather than maintaing the leaves, any extra sugars will be moved into the bud.


----------



## dazza666 (Sep 22, 2010)

I have heard that the the plant should be lollipopped. I have also heard that they should be 'red flagged' in the first and the third week in flower. By red flagged, I guess they mean any of the fan or sugar leaves that develop a red stem can be taken off. They also should snap off nicely with a firm tug downwards. If they don't come off the plant still needs them. This is done for two reasons 1) to allow light to penetrate to lower bud sites, 2) to allow the nutrients to feed the buds rather than the leaves. 
This is only what I have heard and read. Just my two cents.


----------



## rastakolnikov (Sep 22, 2010)

Nutrients don't feed the buds, the leaves do


----------



## Total Head (Sep 24, 2010)

harinama said:


> I defoliate all through my grow. Each time a budding tip is 1"+, i pull the fan leaf. In my tests i noticed no difference in bud size with fan or without. I do, however notice a HUGE increase in light down into the plant, and thus much better/thicker buds.
> 
> *you can get this same result with lst without robbing your plant of the ability to photosynthesize.*
> 
> ...


if you've done tests whose results contradict 3rd grade science i think a nobel prize is in order. just think of the crop a corn farmer could get if he just removed all the leaves. then the corn cobs could take in more light and grow bigger better corn! you sir have revolutionized farming.


----------



## freddiemoney (Sep 24, 2010)

I take all the leaves off when I harvest.


----------



## plaguedog (Sep 24, 2010)

LOL how many of these threads does this noob paradise have? My god, do a search.......

And that second plant with no leaves looks like hell at 48 days..... Should be much more developed.


----------



## plaguedog (Sep 24, 2010)

You are using half/strength nutes because the plant isn't as healthy as it was before you mangled it by removing it's natural energy sources..... When you feed the plant it's feeding more then just the leaves\. For fucks sake......



> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 24, 2010)

Total Head said:


> if you've done tests whose results contradict 3rd grade science i think a nobel prize is in order. just think of the crop a corn farmer could get if he just removed all the leaves. then the corn cobs could take in more light and grow bigger better corn! you sir have revolutionized farming.


LOL

....with every new crop of noobs......


----------



## AKRevo47 (Sep 24, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_cycle

View attachment 1174937
Nutrients provide the structure for growth, not the energy.


----------



## Shoot (Sep 24, 2010)

Leave as many on as you can until harvest. I cut some of mine off but I have been for years and pick and choose for some OCD reason. Prob hurts more then it helps.


----------



## canefan (Sep 24, 2010)

Is it just me or do other notice this common theme? What the hell is the government school system teaching today? The amount of ignorance, not to be confused with stupidity, that appears in some of these forums is amazing. It appears that today the students are not even taught the most basic biology in school today, nor taught how to research a subject. One more thing and I will get off my rant, why do these people that have "heard" or "from my test results" never tell or show us their results or where they heard it?
For the people that truly believe there is no difference in pulling leaves or leaving the plant to produce what nature engineered where are the results or pictures showing side by side comparisons to support a claim that totally goes against the laws of nature. Granted marijuana is an amazing plant but it cannot even make up energy out of thin air to produce a bigger bud. For the believers there is no difference and that by removing the leaves the plant will direct its remaining energies to producing bigger buds. Here is an article done by Texas about molasses, in it the study shows where the sugars the plant takes up from its roots go to a plant. The first place is not the buds it is the leaves. If you pull the leaves the plant will redirect it sugars and other nutes to produce new leaves.
IMHO most growers need to spend some quality time reading not only forums to learn, but more importantly learn how to research biology. Google can be your friend, so can a high school or college biology book.
Sorry for the rant but I feel better and I didn't even berate anyone. Happy Growing


----------



## Uncle Ben (Sep 25, 2010)

canefan said:


> Is it just me or do other notice this common theme? What the hell is the government school system teaching today? The amount of ignorance, not to be confused with stupidity, that appears in some of these forums is amazing. It appears that today the students are not even taught the most basic biology in school today, nor taught how to research a subject. One more thing and I will get off my rant, why do these people that have "heard" or "from my test results" never tell or show us their results or where they heard it?
> For the people that truly believe there is no difference in pulling leaves or leaving the plant to produce what nature engineered where are the results or pictures showing side by side comparisons to support a claim that totally goes against the laws of nature. Granted marijuana is an amazing plant but it cannot even make up energy out of thin air to produce a bigger bud. For the believers there is no difference and that by removing the leaves the plant will direct its remaining energies to producing bigger buds. Here is an article done by Texas about molasses, in it the study shows where the sugars the plant takes up from its roots go to a plant. The first place is not the buds it is the leaves. If you pull the leaves the plant will redirect it sugars and other nutes to produce new leaves.
> IMHO most growers need to spend some quality time reading not only forums to learn, but more importantly learn how to research biology. Google can be your friend, so can a high school or college biology book.
> Sorry for the rant but I feel better and I didn't even berate anyone. Happy Growing


Well spoken and been saying for years what you laid out. 

If it's said on the internet and someone repeats it then it must be true LOL.

UB

post edit - No sooner did I go to the next thread in My Rolliup and your example came up LOL. https://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-plant-problems/150004-plant-moisture-stress-symptoms-solutions-60.html


----------



## canefan (Sep 25, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Well spoken and been saying for years what you laid out.
> 
> If it's said on the internet and someone repeats it then it must be true LOL.
> 
> ...


thanks and I do feel better after that little rant


----------



## slk (Sep 25, 2010)

So we can end this thread here and now.
THE END


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 29, 2010)

/thread

seriously, its over...


----------



## SmokeyMc74 (Sep 30, 2010)

well i picked mine so we will see lol


----------



## ganicsarebetter (Oct 1, 2010)

done. final answer. leave the leave


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 2, 2010)

OP, dont touch the leaves until 3 weeks into bloom. Then you can safely remove all the fan leaves to maximize yield. Cannibas doesnt use the fan leaves hardly at all once you reach that point and the light they block from lower sights they become very counter productive. I have done lots of SOGs and with high numbers there is no other way you can do it. You have to remove most of the fan leaves . Done it both ways and removing them makes a huge increase in yield. With Chronic White Widow I have done SOGs that averaged 30 grams per plant dried and cut at 4 per SQ foot without the use of CO2. That is over 1.6 grams per watt. Numbers speak for themselves but I'll post a pic of one of my early grows with this strain done at 4 per foot.



mcpurple said:


> why it is a simple fact and only takes common sense to know that a plant needs it leafs to produce its fruits. do you see apple,pair,orange,cherry farmers removing theri leaf to get light to the fruit NO, why because its the leafs that make the fruit big and healthy if they were in the light all the time it would be bad for the fruits. growing marijuana is mostly COMMON SENSE



Havent read all of this yet but you are incorrect. We arent growing fruit we are growing a weed that produces large dense buds. The leaves are needed during vegatative and early flower . After that it gets all it needs from the small bud leaves. Here is a pic of one of mine that I removed every single fan leaf on day 21 of bloom. I always do this and I always get great results. Notice how the bud is as thick and dense on the bottom as the rest of the plant. I have this same exact strain outside with ZERO pruning and its 7 feet tall. The buds on it are SMALLER then the one pictured below ! Proof is in the putting. Every one that has posted "oh dont cut the solar panels off, nature designed them for a reason blah blah blah" havent posted any results at all but are rather assuming you cant improve upon natures design. FAIL. Sorry but plain and simple FAIL. These threads get under my skin. All these people come in here talking all holier then though when they are for a fact wrong. They act like you are committing a sin by removing them. I first heard about guys doing this and getting better results I admit I didnt know. Guess how I found out? I actually TRIED it and compared the results. Not even close. Look at a huge plant outdoors. Where are all the large colas? On the bottom ? NOPE. On the bottom where its all shaded you get tiny crappy popcorn buds. I have several large outdoors trees just like that right now. Funny , there are lots of leaves down there but almost ZERO bud. It is very shady down there, it couldnt possibly be from those bud sites not getting light could it ?? HMMMMMMmmmmmm............. What do guys lollipop and remove a third of th bottom of the plant ? Why do guys Scrog ? Bottom line is every time I hear guys spouting BS about not removing leaves its always the guys with no prrof, picture or better then average results . The guys that post in these threads who do remove them are the ones with better the average results. With my style of growing the difference is 10-15 grams per plant or 30. But hey I am not a botanist growing orange trees so dont listen to me. LOL


----------



## jbo (Oct 3, 2010)

i concur. lst and then when i flip to 12/12 i thin em out taking all lower foliage and even some of the lower flowers off. seems to work for me. 15 plants, 4k, 7x7 room, looking like 6# off this run -maui wowie


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 3, 2010)

There is the reason why only a small percentage of people get way above average yields. Most people just follow the popular choice rather then finding out for themselves like myself and others have done. These guys can talk all day long about grade school science and growing apples and oranges but in the end they arent growing huge indoor yields like some of us do. Thinking plants cant be manilpuated to grow better then they do in nature is plain ignorant.


----------



## Total Head (Oct 3, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> OP, dont touch the leaves until 3 weeks into bloom. Then you can safely remove all the fan leaves to maximize yield. Cannibas doesnt use the fan leaves hardly at all once you reach that point and the light they block from lower sights they become very counter productive. I have done lots of SOGs and with high numbers there is no other way you can do it. You have to remove most of the fan leaves . Done it both ways and removing them makes a huge increase in yield. With Chronic White Widow I have done SOGs that averaged 30 grams per plant dried and cut at 4 per SQ foot without the use of CO2. That is over 1.6 grams per watt. Numbers speak for themselves but I'll post a pic of one of my early grows with this strain done at 4 per foot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


here we go again. the only fails here are that you clearly don't understand the argument and have merely slapped up a pic with no control plant to compare it to. whoopie. "proof" he says. lmao. had you actually READ the discussion (or your own post for that matter) you would see why your argument is silly. you are advocating removing leaves in sog setups and lollipopping, which are techniques specifically for maximizing the TOP of the plant only. the argument here is whether removing fan leaves gets better light to the BOTTOM of the plant, so which is your argument, focus on the tops or focus on the bottoms? lollipopping removes those budsites altogether and sog neglects them due to plant size. neither of them has to do with taking a whole plant full term with better bottom buds. it's actually the opposite because the idea is to get rid of those budsites altogether and focus on fat top colas ONLY. so you claim that you can take all that which would have developed on the bottom and somehow stuff it all into a few top colas and this will equal more yeild. which brings me to my next point (which has been beaten to death but you clearly haven't read any of it). there are several ways to maximize the yeilds of the lower budsites WITHOUT robbing the plant of its ability to photosynthesize and transport mobile elements. i can't believe this thread still lives.


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

When studying plant and soil sciences classes in college we thinned fruiting sites on trees to promote healthier, stronger, and more uniform growth of fruits, that's why cleaning up the fruiting sites at the bottom of the plants is a great idea...in reality its just consolidating the energy resources of the plant. When I am thinning my girls at weeks 1-3 of flower, I remove only the growth tips - I leave as many actual fan leaves as possible so to keep as much photosynthesis as possible happening. This can be a pain in the butt, though I think the combination of less flowering sites versus more leaves gives me great results. Also, plants grow larger buds at the top of the plants because this is where all the growth hormones go... Thus, why commercial farmes use PGR's (plant growth regulators) and focus on the canopy versus the lower branches...the compounding effects of:

1. More direct sun for ripening of fruits 
2. Less competition at the fruiting sites for resources
3. Energy sent and used where it is best utilized (the tops)
4. Manipulating the plant into redistributing the growth hormones generates a more uniform crop of fruits

promotes a better all around crop. When pruning I usually go at it twice a week for the first three weeks, in order to...

1. Let the veg growth finish
2. Decrease the chances of stressing by frequently removing small amounts at one time allowing the plant sufficient recovery time
3. decide which fruiting sites I want to keep based on the shape of the plant


----------



## topshelf (Oct 3, 2010)

We just went over this again and again on another site..I lost and left the talk...But you guys that think you can get a better plant and yield by pulling the very thing that feeds the plant...YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND HOW PLANTS GROW..my friend does this all the time no matter how much i have told him to stop ...HE WILL NOT STOP DOING IT!..He grows good plants and lots of bud...but in 10 years he has never taken it to where i am....TOPSHELF...We grow the same plants the same way and people that SMOKE it say mine is always TOPSHELF and his is friend pass around weed...SAME PLANT!...This leaf pull is only done by people that grow pot...NO FARMER IN THE WORLD PULLS HIS LEAF OFF HIS PLANTS AND THEY ONLY PRUNE WHEN PLANTS AND TREES ARE DORMENT NOT WHEN THEY ARE GROWING..Ever wonder why?..Now i have heard of taking off small fruit and flowers that have not set fruit to help the other fruit ripen...But if you take leaf off you just dont understand how plants grow,and till you really understand that you will never get better!


----------



## Future858 (Oct 3, 2010)

Hey i havent been into the hobby for long, currently on my 3rd grow. I heard about people chopping leaves, but i use mine as the plants "facial expressions", i.e. telling me they are happy, sad, thirsty..etc. Without leaves i wouldnt be able to tell how healthy, happy or sad the plant is. Lol super stoney..anyone think this too?


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 3, 2010)

I think I agree with you.


----------



## Oldgrowth (Oct 3, 2010)

I remove all my leaves about a week after harvest when the stems will snap and not bend just before i start curing my buds. I look at it this way if i take all those leaves off then a great majority of the light hits grow room floor and is wasted. my plants are so full no light hits the floor.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 3, 2010)

Total Head said:


> here we go again. the only fails here are that you clearly don't understand the argument and have merely slapped up a pic with no control plant to compare it to. whoopie. "proof" he says. lmao. had you actually READ the discussion (or your own post for that matter) you would see why your argument is silly. you are advocating removing leaves in sog setups and lollipopping, which are techniques specifically for maximizing the TOP of the plant only. the argument here is whether removing fan leaves gets better light to the BOTTOM of the plant, so which is your argument, focus on the tops or focus on the bottoms? lollipopping removes those budsites altogether and sog neglects them due to plant size. neither of them has to do with taking a whole plant full term with better bottom buds. it's actually the opposite because the idea is to get rid of those budsites altogether and focus on fat top colas ONLY. so you claim that you can take all that which would have developed on the bottom and somehow stuff it all into a few top colas and this will equal more yeild. which brings me to my next point (which has been beaten to death but you clearly haven't read any of it). there are several ways to maximize the yeilds of the lower budsites WITHOUT robbing the plant of its ability to photosynthesize and transport mobile elements. i can't believe this thread still lives.


Well then you clearly didnt read or comprehend my post then did you? I was refrring to lollipo and SCOG because they are both different methos of manipulating the plant to yield MORE which clearly is comparable to what we are discussing. I do SOG trays all day long and I get consistant results using this method. When you start getting over 1.5 grams per watt (hell even 1 gram per watt) without CO2 then feel free to scutinize my very successful method of MAXIMIZING YIELD. Like I said very clearly in my post I went from 10-15 grams per plant @ 4 per SQ foot to 30. That equates to 1900 grams on a 4X4 tray with no CO2. Last round I did averaged 25 per plant. Yep cutting those leaves sure as hell hurt my yields BIG TIME didnt it ???? Those numbers speak for themselves while you are just flapping your lips as have many others in this thread. Havegrown scrog and lollipoping and this method I employ gets me a much higher yield. Solid thick buds 20 inches tall all the way to the pot 64 per 4X4 tray. Any other method you use to mazimize your lights efficiency will also require removal of leaves in order to get the highest possible yield for that given space, period.


----------



## AbsoluteChron (Oct 3, 2010)

I kind of skipped through for the most part, but did anyone mention the fact that this is a cfl grow and that light penetration is paramount. This is nothing like outdoor growth where light penetrates the leaves relatively well. With a CFL you are not only getting practically zero light penetration through leaves, you also have to keep plants in a very narrow range of distance from the lights before you have such a dramatic drop in PAR value that the buds outside of this range are popcorn. I would say that optimal growth (given that the light intensity from the CFL is the limiting factor in this situation) occurs when the maximum amount of photosynthetic surface is exposed to the highest intensity light available without burning the leaves, but before the PAR value drops off too much and the light is no longer useful. Using CFLs without a SCROG is generally too much work for the quality and production IMO.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 3, 2010)

AbsoluteChron said:


> I kind of skipped through for the most part, but did anyone mention the fact that this is a cfl grow and that light penetration is paramount. This is nothing like outdoor growth where light penetrates the leaves relatively well. With a CFL you are not only getting practically zero light penetration through leaves, you also have to keep plants in a very narrow range of distance from the lights before you have such a dramatic drop in PAR value that the buds outside of this range are popcorn. I would say that optimal growth (given that the light intensity from the CFL is the limiting factor in this situation) occurs when the maximum amount of photosynthetic surface is exposed to the highest intensity light available without burning the leaves, but before the PAR value drops off too much and the light is no longer useful. Using CFLs without a SCROG is generally too much work for the quality and production IMO.


Well thats entirely too logical for this thread =) Their "logic" dictates that you are killing all the bud producing leaves no matter what the scenario is. 

If you are a casual grower and want decent yields putting 10-12 plants on a 4X4 tray without touching them is fine. If you want MAXIMUM yield you need to change that scenario. Scrog, LST, super cropping or SOG in that same space with lots of trimming of the precious little leaves will net much larger yields . Its the difference between getting 1 lb per light or getting 3+ lbs per light. Dont think so then simply try it yourself. Grow 12 plants, then try 64 plants with no trimming of leaves and finally try 64 plants and trimming all the fan leaves at day 21 of bloom. Your results will be all the proof you need to never look back. Plants have to be switched at just the right size, which for me is about 6-8 inches tall ending at 18-20 tall. You need to do some minor pruning from the very get go (clone stage) so they will form better single colas like the picture I posted previously. Lastly you want a strain that tens to grow large center colas. Other strains will work btu yield less and are more time consuming. Hell I used to grow in 7 gallon soil containers years ago. Migrated to 3 gallon, 2 gal, 1 gal then back to 2 gal and finally to my present 5 inch pots (maybe half gal) ebb and flow in hydroton.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 4, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> .....Well thats entirely too logical for this thread =) Their "logic" dictates that you are killing all the bud producing leaves no matter what the scenario is.


(Botanically speaking) how so? Once you remove plant units that produces the simple and complex carbos that drive bud production, what plant material is left to do the job? I just got through harvesting an outdoor plant that got FULL sun, top to bottom, inside and out, sunrise to sunset, lost alot of its fan leaves due to my neglect (lack of water) while it was flowering and it was the worst yield I've ever had. Previous outdoor plant which retained its fan leaves yielded enough to fill up a wheebarrow (see photo), this plant sucked. Having said that, what I did harvest looks excellent with moist green leaves, bubble gum smell and very resinous. 





Whether the plant material is a pecan tree, apple, tomato or pepper plant, hibiscus or olive tree.....you lose leaves and you lose flower/fruit production.

UB


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 4, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> (Botanically speaking) how so? Once you remove plant units that produces the simple and complex carbos that drive bud production, what plant material is left to do the job? I just got through harvesting an outdoor plant that got FULL sun, top to bottom, inside and out, sunrise to sunset, lost alot of its fan leaves due to my neglect (lack of water) while it was flowering and it was the worst yield I've ever had. Previous outdoor plant which retained its fan leaves yielded enough to fill up a wheebarrow (see photo), this plant sucked. Having said that, what I did harvest looks excellent with moist green leaves, bubble gum smell and very resinous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You answered your own question. Lost its leaves due to your neglect hence seriously stunting your production. I already gave proof that removing the leaves works. That that huge single cola with no fan leaves doesnt show this I dont know what will. There are still lots and lots of leaves on a bud. Fan leaves are leftover from vegetative state.


----------



## Total Head (Oct 4, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Well then you clearly didnt read or comprehend my post then did you? I was refrring to lollipo and SCOG because they are both different methos of manipulating the plant to yield MORE which clearly is comparable to what we are discussing. *I do SOG trays all day long* and I get consistant results using this method. *When you start getting over 1.5 grams per watt (hell even 1 gram per watt) without CO2 then feel free to scutinize my very successful method of MAXIMIZING YIELD*. Like I said very clearly in my post I went from 10-15 grams per plant @ 4 per SQ foot to 30. That equates to 1900 grams on a 4X4 tray with no CO2. Last round I did averaged 25 per plant. Yep cutting those leaves sure as hell hurt my yields BIG TIME didnt it ???? Those numbers speak for themselves while you are just flapping your lips as have many others in this thread. Havegrown scrog and lollipoping and this method I employ gets me a much higher yield. Solid thick buds 20 inches tall all the way to the pot 64 per 4X4 tray. Any other method you use to mazimize your lights efficiency will also require removal of leaves in order to get the highest possible yield for that given space, period.


lmao. so now you've revolutionized agriculture AND developed esp. it's amazing how you know how much i yeild and what kind of grow conditions i have. and once again, you are advocating techniques that are for canopy control. no one is arguing that canopy control is not the answer to better yeilds. the argument is over WHICH methods are productive and which ones are counterproductive. in this thread we are focusing on the "productivity" of removing fan leaves. but since you seem hellbent on making this a pissing match here are some pics of my current canopy in veg about a week ago. does it look like i have problems getting adaquate light to any budsites? every cola that grows from that canopy will be similar in size to all the others. anything that is left underneath (which won't be much trust me) that doesn't get light will die all by itself. nothing gets cut ever. i submit that your alleged increased yeilds are simply due to better canopy control by effectively employing the sog method (which is interesting since the "proof" pic you posted does not appear to be part of a sog setup at all). the sog method is for growing several plants which obviously if done correctly could yeild more than a single plant left to it's own. this thread is about whether cutting the leaves off an individual plant impacts yeild in a positive or negative way.


----------



## Brick Top (Oct 4, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> You answered your own question. Lost its leaves due to your neglect hence seriously stunting your production. I already gave proof that removing the leaves works. That that huge single cola with no fan leaves doesnt show this I dont know what will. There are still lots and lots of leaves on a bud. Fan leaves are leftover from vegetative state.



Anyone who has studied even just basic botany can tell you that if you remove leaves from healthy adult plants crop production will be reduced. That is a fact that no amount of &#8216;I think this,&#8217; or &#8216;I was told that&#8217; or &#8216;when I do this&#8217; will ever be able to prove to be false. There are facts and there are beliefs and Uncle Ben is sharing facts while others are sharing beliefs. 

Uncle Ben is correct.


----------



## topshelf (Oct 4, 2010)

I dont have to do any side by side test...this didnt work 40 years ago when i first heard of it and it does not work now...Call any College Extension agent...any real Plant Nursery(not home depo)..any farmer..any greenhouse grower...and grow store(if it isnt run by some stupid mim wage worker)..go check out ANY PLANT book...And when you call ask..."Have you ever heard of people taking leaves off plant to improve yield of fruit?"...The first thing out of most peoples mouth...It cant work that way because of PHOTOSYNTHESIS...its really that easy...But you guys dont even undertstand that..So you REALLY dont EVEN understand how plants grow...Thats how for from undertstanding you are....You guys are trying to tell people that REALLY know how plants grow that they are wrong and you are right...It would be like some kid in 1st grade trying to tell a pro football player how to play football...THATS HOW FAR FROM UNDERSTANDING YOU ARE..CAN I BE MORE CLEAR?..BUT YOU DONT LESSON!!!!..AND NEVER WILL!..so do what ever you want...You guys think this is new,you dicovered some great new way to get more killer bud?...Some guy told me this 40 years ago!..ARE YOU EVEN 40?


----------



## jeffbelize (Oct 4, 2010)

stubbornstoner013 said:


> Common Sense huh?!?! Common sense could just as easily tell me that the plant is wasting its energy and nutrients to maintain the dying leaf rather than generating a lil extra energy w/ the lil bit of green its got left (if it has any). Green= active chlorophyll = energy. Yellow= dead chlorophyll=no energy=blocking light for green leaves below. Or is my common sense-orator broken again?!


you dont understand how a plant grows!


----------



## NovusSpiritus (Oct 4, 2010)

*SIGH* 
 
*Botany 101*
Plants need energy to grow, to replace worn out cells, to get rid of waste, and to reproduce. All organisms get energy from food. *Photosynthesis* is the process by which plants make food. Only plants can make food. 
 
In this process carbon dioxide and water combine in the presence of light to form sugar, a food. *Stomates* are found in layers of protective cells on the surface of the leaf. Gases move in and out of the stomates. These openings connect to large air spaces in the middle layer of the leaf. Carbon dioxide in the middle layer of the leaf is then available to the *chloroplasts. *Chloroplasts are the food-making cells of the leaf. *Xylem* in the veins carry water to these food-making cells. The water comes from the roots and the root hairs which are in the ground.  
 
Think of a chloroplast as a food factory. Carbon dioxide and water are the raw materials that go into the factory. Sunlight is the energy that changes the raw materials into the product; food in the form of sugar.

 Photosynthesis is a complex process. A series of chemical reactions change the raw materials to the food product. The process can be shown simply by looking at the starting materials and the end products. 
*
WATER + CARBON DIOXIDE + ENERGY &#8594; SUGAR + OXYGEN

*Although all cells in the green parts of a plant have chloroplasts, *most of the energy is captured in the* *LEAVES*. *The cells in the interior tissues of a leaf are called the mesophyll. The mesophyll contain between 450,000 and 800,000 chloroplasts per square millimeter of leaf*. The surface of the leaf is uniformly coated with a water-resistant waxy cuticle that protects the leaf from excessive evaporation of water and decreases the absorption of ultraviolet or blue light to reduce heating. The transparent epidermis layer allows light to pass through to the palisade mesophyll cells where most of the photosynthesis takes place.

I reeeeeeeally hope this helps the confused people out there...
​


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 4, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> Anyone who has studied even just basic botany can tell you that if you remove leaves from healthy adult plants crop production will be reduced. That is a fact that no amount of &#8216;I think this,&#8217; or &#8216;I was told that&#8217; or &#8216;when I do this&#8217; will ever be able to prove to be false. There are facts and there are beliefs and Uncle Ben is sharing facts while others are sharing beliefs.
> 
> Uncle Ben is correct.


great avatar bricktop, goody gumdrops


----------



## Future858 (Oct 5, 2010)

Plants are amazing, they will drop off leaves when it decides to. In the rainforest, leaves and branches fight to get to the top of the canopy to cement their legacy. The leaves below the top canopy usually die off, it is just nature. 
A bear never goes out to the woods to clip the apple trees leaves for a larger bee nest.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 5, 2010)

So how was I able to grow this with all those leaves removed then brainiacs ??? 64 of these on a tray and averaged 30 grams per plant. Yeah I know pictures and proof are overrated. Need more pictures PROVING you wrong I will be happy to put them up.....









Why did it yield over 3 lbs under one light when clearly everything points to this being impossible ? Why does it keep doing this ? Where are all the pics and testimonies of people leaving all the leaves on their plants in a full sog table? Hmm. Every single thread I have seen from a poster with great yields in a SOG have plants that look very much like mine without any real fan leaves. How dense are you guys that you cant see all the leaf matter still on my photo ??? 

All you closed minded dolts that need proof just grow 64 plants on a 4X4 tray and see for yourself how EVERYTHING would get no almost no light from all the leaves and check out your super awesome yield ..... What you guys really don't get is a very simple concept or getting as much bud as much light as possible for a given space. Its called efficiency. Wow, super technical I know. Take it another step and grow 128 plants in a 4X4, it can and has been done. You wont get any light to the buds unless you cut leaves, sorry. You can tuck them and do whatever you like but you will still be growing a big table of leaf. 

You guys keep growing your sub par yielding trays and I'll keep kicking your rears doing the unthinkable .... LOL I have only methodically tried growing every way possible and have a very clear winner by about 2 fold but hey what do I know. The wanna be botanists say it isnt possible so there you have it guys.....


----------



## cadeneli (Oct 5, 2010)

Stupid mother nature putting all these stupid leaves that serve as solar panels and store nutrients and sugars that are crucial to achieve maximum bud potential. Let's cut em off. I tried this years ago after reading conflicting opinions with same strain, same conditions and the plants I didn't touch were better in every aspect. One love


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 5, 2010)

Total Head said:


> lmao. so now you've revolutionized agriculture AND developed esp. it's amazing how you know how much i yeild and what kind of grow conditions i have. and once again, you are advocating techniques that are for canopy control. no one is arguing that canopy control is not the answer to better yeilds. the argument is over WHICH methods are productive and which ones are counterproductive. in this thread we are focusing on the "productivity" of removing fan leaves. but since you seem hellbent on making this a pissing match here are some pics of my current canopy in veg about a week ago. does it look like i have problems getting adaquate light to any budsites? every cola that grows from that canopy will be similar in size to all the others. anything that is left underneath (which won't be much trust me) that doesn't get light will die all by itself. nothing gets cut ever. i submit that your alleged increased yeilds are simply due to better canopy control by effectively employing the sog method (which is interesting since the "proof" pic you posted does not appear to be part of a sog setup at all). the sog method is for growing several plants which obviously if done correctly could yeild more than a single plant left to it's own. this thread is about whether cutting the leaves off an individual plant impacts yeild in a positive or negative way.


Well I guess my "ESP" was correct after seeing your pictures. You'll be lucky to get over 1/2 gram per watt on that setup. Here I'll give you more pics. I staged that plant and others for the pictures I took. Still pulled some out that were in front of these tog et a better picture of the plants themselves but you get the idea. 








And more recent photo of a lower yielding strain then the Chronic WW above. Only got about 20 gram per plant average (1280 grams per light) 







Here is a 4X8 tray I just switched to 12X12 before they filled in. Do you guys have any idea how much foliage there would be on a tray like this after week 3 ? Cut all the leaves off at week three of bloom like I always do now. Was unbelievably overcrowded until I did so. I only had enough plants to put in 85 but still pulled a good 4 lbs off the tray. Had I done my usual 128 plants it would have been more like 6 lbs.








So finished "miracle" bud that shouldn't have grown .










I must just have MAGIC plants that grow like crazy no matter how much I abuse them.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 6, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Why did it yield over 3 lbs under one light when clearly everything points to this being impossible ?


Because it was an indica or dominantly indica genes? See my avatar - 6" wide super dense colas. Now try this with a sativa and see what you get.



> How dense are you guys that you cant see all the leaf matter still on my photo ???


Like I've said, many times plants replace that which is lost. Many years ago I stripped out branches of a plant "to open it up" and it replaced the foliage by double. 



> You wont get any light to the buds unless you cut leaves, sorry.


Sure you will, R and FR light goes thru foliage. Where's your control group? 

I want to see a scientifically controlled, empirical study regarding the removal of leaves and how it affects production. 

Having said that, if it works for you and you don't mind being a slave to your garden, strip away.....

Looks good, 
UB


----------



## cadeneli (Oct 6, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Because it was an indica or dominantly indica genes? See my avatar - 6" wide super dense colas. Now try this with a sativa and see what you get.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well put. And I have to say that is a monster in your profile pic.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 6, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Because it was an indica or dominantly indica genes? See my avatar - 6" wide super dense colas. Now try this with a sativa and see what you get.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Proof, hmm lets see. How about the simple fact that my yields are higher then 99% of indoor growers and I dont even use CO2. 

5 years of growing indoors only the last year have I stripped the leaves and coincidentally my yields are triple what they were a year ago. 

Strains I HAVE done controlled comparisons are , Blue Cheese, Super Skunk, Blue Dream, Casey Jones, Chronic White Widow, Cheese, Sweet Tooth, Chem Dog, and more.... Grown in the same room same lighting and the trimmed tray out yielded the untrimmed tray two fold. 

Not enough? Well then look at my pictures PROVING huge dense buds to the ground by trimming the leaves.

Why did I start cutting leaves? Reading threads from guys getting MAXIMUM yields. I like to model my grow from people with more experience then myself and getting much better then average results. Same reason I went to a 64 plant per light SOG. After reading several threads of guys getting well over a gram per watt I thought I would give it a try for myself. Growers like that usually dont start threads about cutting leaves and such and start these lame debates everyone seem to get all worked up over. 

Timing is whats crucial for this to be successful. You cant just trim them during veg or early flower. The key is to wait until day 21 of bloom. Anyway, there will continue to be people who are happy with mediocre yields and thats fine. I only argue this becuase of all the false information people are spreading about something that actually works better.


----------



## cadeneli (Oct 6, 2010)

I think its funny these threads always end up being a dick measuring contest. And how xo you know your yield is higher than 99% of all indoor growers and who even cares. The fact is, its not good to hack your plant. I guess you are saying you know more about growing than jorge cervantes. If i had a nickle every time ive heard that.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 6, 2010)

cadeneli said:


> I think its funny these threads always end up being a dick measuring contest. And how xo you know your yield is higher than 99% of all indoor growers and who even cares. The fact is, its not good to hack your plant. I guess you are saying you know more about growing than jorge cervantes. If i had a nickle every time ive heard that.


LOL well if it was mine would be a lot bigger then most. I have been around here and other forums enough to know MOST guys hope to get 1 gram per watt. Fact is it IS good to hack your leaves off IF you want a higher yield in a full SOG setup. If you are happy with lower yields keep all of them on. Ed Rosenthal says cut them so there you have it.. 

PS how is it my Chronic White Widow indoor buds are LARGER then my 6 foot outdoor one taken from the same mother if cutting the leaves was so detrimental ? Must be just another plant that had pixie dust sprinkled on it eh ??


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 6, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Ed Rosenthal says cut them so there you have it..


Well, if Ed says it, it's got to be champ.

You really don't think the mutts you bought have any degree of significance from one "strain" to the next? Any one can produce beans and give them a name. Doesn't mean they're worth a crap.

UB


----------



## Total Head (Oct 6, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Proof, hmm lets see. How about the simple fact that my yields are higher then 99% of indoor growers and I dont even use CO2.
> 
> 5 years of growing indoors only the last year have I stripped the leaves and coincidentally my yields are triple what they were a year ago.
> 
> ...


correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't you just post a thread in the general section of your outdoor harvest? it really was a thing of beauty and i repped you for it, but i couldn't help but notice all those healthy fan leaves everywhere...just saying.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 6, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Well, if Ed says it, it's got to be champ.
> 
> You really don't think the mutts you bought have any degree of significance from one "strain" to the next? Any one can produce beans and give them a name. Doesn't mean they're worth a crap.
> 
> UB


My Ed comment was directed at the other guy mentioning Cervante like it really mattered. Muts I bought? Dont follow unless you are implying seeds which I didnt. Mine are all cones from the same mothers so no not "mutts" =)


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 6, 2010)

Total Head said:


> correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't you just post a thread in the general section of your outdoor harvest? it really was a thing of beauty and i repped you for it, but i couldn't help but notice all those healthy fan leaves everywhere...just saying.



Lol yeah that was me and no I didnt touch the leaves on those plants. Outdoors is pretty different. Lot more space and the light source moves all over the place unlike indoors. If I was trying to put my whole outdoor grow in a space uch much smaller I would actually be growing a lot higher numbers much closer together and chopping leaves. What can I say, I didnt believe it until I tried it properly myself. Thanks for the reps =)


----------



## AbsoluteChron (Oct 7, 2010)

Total Head said:


> lmao. so now you've revolutionized agriculture AND developed esp. it's amazing how you know how much i yeild and what kind of grow conditions i have. and once again, you are advocating techniques that are for canopy control. no one is arguing that canopy control is not the answer to better yeilds. the argument is over WHICH methods are productive and which ones are counterproductive. in this thread we are focusing on the "productivity" of removing fan leaves. but since you seem hellbent on making this a pissing match here are some pics of my current canopy in veg about a week ago. does it look like i have problems getting adaquate light to any budsites? every cola that grows from that canopy will be similar in size to all the others. anything that is left underneath (which won't be much trust me) that doesn't get light will die all by itself. nothing gets cut ever. i submit that your alleged increased yeilds are simply due to better canopy control by effectively employing the sog method (which is interesting since the "proof" pic you posted does not appear to be part of a sog setup at all). the sog method is for growing several plants which obviously if done correctly could yeild more than a single plant left to it's own. this thread is about whether cutting the leaves off an individual plant impacts yeild in a positive or negative way.


Canopy management is the entire purpose for trimming the fan leaves. Trimming the leaves is an effort to manipulate the light intensity and penetration throughout the plant. The reason I answered this way is because the parity between sunlight's ability to penetrate through leaves is so much better that my answer would be different for indoor vs outdoor. Also, I would be HIGHLY SURPRISED if any of the sources you are referring to are based on HID lighting as opposed to sunlight. I am also fairly certain that this data you have has nothing to do with cannabis specifically (namely its photoreceptivity), and does not compare to training techniques where the result of trimming is more bud sites. Is it really that unbelievable that growing cannabis, given the huge number of variables involved, is actually quite a bit more situational than you currently think?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 7, 2010)

Hrrmmmmmmmph, beat that chest!



dlively11 said:


> My Ed comment was directed at the other guy mentioning Cervante like it really mattered. Muts I bought? Dont follow unless you are implying seeds which I didnt. Mine are all cones from the same mothers so no not "mutts" =)


Clones are cuttings from mutts. You're not growing any pure landrace plants that I can see. They're all the same....the seedbanks just position the furniture around the room in a different spot and give them a recycled name. 

You'd have higher yields if you left the plant alone. I'll post this again from the guru of cannabis botany, R.C. Clark. This comes from a post by a forum buddy about 12 years or so ago. (told you the topic is recycled with every new crop of noobs!)

*"Leafing" is one of the most misunderstood techniques of drug cannabis cultivation. **He states that there are 3 common beliefs:*

*1.) Large shade leaves draw energy from the flowering plant and by removing the large fan leaves **surplus energy will be available and larger floral clusters will be formed,*

*2.) Some feel that the inhibitors of flowering , synthesized in the fan leaves during the long*
*non-inductive days of summer, may be stored in the older leaves that were formed during the*
*noninductive photoperiod. Possibly, if these inhibitor-laden leaves are removed, the plant will*
*proceed to flower more quickly when the shorter days of fall trigger flowering,*

*3.) Large fan leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small, atrophied, interior floral clusters **may begin to develop if they receive more light.*

*Few, if any, of the theories behind leafing have any validity. **The large fan leaves have a definite function in the growth and development of cannabis. Large **leaves serve as photosynthetic factories for the production of sugars and other necessary growth **substances.They do create shade, but at the same time thay are collecting valuable solar energy and **producing foods that will be used during the floral development of the plant. P**remature removal of the fan leaves may cause stunting because the potential for photosynthesis is **reduced.*

*Most cannabis plants begin to lose their larger leaves when they enter the flowering stage and this **trend continues on until senescence (death of the plant). **He also states that removing large amounts of fan leaves will also interfere with the metabolic **balance of the plant. Leaf removal may also cause SEX REVERSAL resulting from a metabolic **imbalance. H**e further states that cannabis grows largest when provided with plentiful nutrients, sunlight, and **water, and left alone to grow and mature naturally.*

*It must be remembered that any alteration of the **natural life cycle of cannabis will affect productivity.*

*This book has served me very well in my 12+ years of growing--I would have to side with RC on*
*this one--those sunleaves are there for a reason--they dont grow just for show--leave them on*
*there and let that plant grow naturally*

UB
.


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 7, 2010)

I knew better than to trim and I still got talked into doing it! Even if trimming your STRAIN midflower was ok I am not seeing the advantage of removing FUEL CELLS from your plant that they use to store stuff. I had 3 ounces on Green Crack last run, I will have it again this run. OG Kush is stalling out, she is out of capacity to grow and it has been this way for weeks.. She is barely swelling up, trimming this plant was a huge mistake.

Don't blindly follow someone telling you to trim your plants in midflower. Do yourself a favor and do a search to see how many people who are legends like Uncle Ben telling you not to do this. I think trim your leafs, go ahead and kill some lights too because they are pointless.

P.S. Green Crack replaces her "leaf mass" that was removed within 2 weeks. OG Kush never did....


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 7, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Hrrmmmmmmmph, beat that chest!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What else can I say other then you are plain wrong ? Have done plenty of back to back grows with same strains off the same mother switched at the same size and the ones with chopped leaves out yield it by a staggering two fold or more sometimes. I will go out on a limb and guess you never grew a 4 per SQ foot SOG (64 a tray).... Wow I could yield over 1.9 grams per watt by leaving the leaves alone ? Sorry I dont think so. If there was any validity to this whole "debate" then my grows wouldnt get anywhere near the maximum yields possible yet they by some "miracle" do. I'll just have to keep feeding them pixie dust I guess. Its expensive but its worth it for magic grows like this.....

FYI I still dont get what you angle is on the Mutt statement. All my plants are clone only. I never bought seeds and they all came from known good pheno mothers. Several I know of the original mother are over 20 years old but whatever. It makes no difference in the plain and simple fact that you and all the others in here are completely wrong on this matter under these circumstances. Like I said before , you need proof go do it yourself. Grow 64 plants in a 4X 4 tray and see how it turns out without trimming. I'll take a guess right now and bet no one yields more then a half pound for the whole tray of dried cut bud. 

Furthermore the time that was written speaks for itself. Dated info will give dated results. I bet that guy never grew over a half gram per watt in his life. 

Peace


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 7, 2010)

*"It must be remembered that any alteration of the **natural life cycle of cannabis will affect productivity."* Atleast he got this partially right. If done CORRECTLY it will increase your yield dramatically. Dont do it before 21 days in to flower and dont do it unless you have a very dense grow like a SCROG or full SOG.


----------



## Closet Farmer (Oct 7, 2010)

I always leave my leaves on till I harvest. I have always heard the leaves provide nutrients to the plant. I am more interested in producing the most potent bud possible so I do not mess with their food.


----------



## OZUT (Oct 7, 2010)

You 2 are talking about 2 completely different grows. UB is right in that you ARE doing more harm than good....Dlively is talking about a SOG setup. In SOG, you don't just take out the fan leaves but you trim out the bottom of the plant for the simple fact that you ARE crowding the plants fairly close together. 

I don't do SOG but I still trim the bottom 1/3 of my plants because I don't lilke the popcorns I get down there. And by trim, I don't mean pick fan leaves, I mean I take a razor blade and shave the bitch so there's no growth. As for the fan leaves, I let them be. If I MUST fuck with the fan leaves, I rather cut them in half than pluck them. That will do a lot less harm overall. You keep your leaf and you still get the light penetration. 

All this is fine if you've got a few plants, but it's just too time consuming and overal not a good idea if you've got a decent size grow going.


----------



## Brick Top (Oct 7, 2010)

Removal of fan leaves will not only slow growth, but it will also hinder the plants ability to rid itself of toxic gases, and also hinder the regulation of the plants temperature via stomata. Changes in the plants chemical metabolism caused by fan leave removal causes the plant to work overtime to rid toxins with less leaves, as a result the pant may allocate more growth hormones into growing more leaves to make up for what has been lost. Removing large amounts of fan leaves may also interfere with the metabolic balance of the plant. Leaf removal may also cause sex reversal resulting from a metabolic imbalance.

Fan leaves account for the greatest area for the reception of photons on a plant, thus they account for the majority of photosynthesis which occurs within a plant. Cells in the plant's leaves, called chloroplasts, contain a green pigment called chlorophyll which interacts with sunlight to split the water in the plant into its basic components. Leaves only absorb about 15% of the solar energy that hits them, the other 85% passes through-- but they reflect all the green light, which means it looks darker below the leaf to a human than it does to the plant because our eyes are most sensitive to the green spectrum.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 7, 2010)

LOL, is the OP serious in this? I think this post was started as a gag. ?LOL


----------



## Brick Top (Oct 7, 2010)

Fan leaves store mobile nutrients, these stored nutrients are essential in the later stages of flowering.


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 7, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> Removal of fan leaves will not only slow growth, but it will also hinder the plants ability to rid itself of toxic gases, and also hinder the regulation of the plants temperature via stomata. Changes in the plants chemical metabolism caused by fan leave removal causes the plant to work overtime to rid &#8216;toxins&#8217; with less leaves, as a result the pant may allocate more growth hormones into growing more leaves to make up for what has been lost. Removing large amounts of fan leaves may also interfere with the metabolic balance of the plant. Leaf removal may also cause sex reversal resulting from a metabolic imbalance.
> 
> Fan leaves account for the greatest area for the reception of photons on a plant, thus they account for the majority of photosynthesis which occurs within a plant. Cells in the plant's leaves, called chloroplasts, contain a green pigment called chlorophyll which interacts with sunlight to split the water in the plant into its basic components. Leaves only absorb about 15% of the solar energy that hits them, the other 85% passes through-- but they reflect all the green light, which means it looks darker below the leaf to a human than it does to the plant because our eyes are most sensitive to the green spectrum.


nice. +rep


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 7, 2010)

So AGAIN I ask why do my plants get such incredible yields if I remove all the fan leaves at day 21 of bloom ? Quality is top grade as well, no toxic gases here.Fan leaves are only a part of the leaf surface on a plant. There are LOTS of other leaves on the bud. It seems VERY clear to me that everyone here who says dont touch them has never grown a 4 per SQ foot SOG, period. If they did they would be laughing at themselves for being this closed minded. I'll also bet not a single poster against the removal of leaves has yielded over a gram per watt. Proof is in the putting. I gave my proof not a bunch of regurgitated outdated mumbo jumbo. =)


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 7, 2010)

Yea lolipopping sog is awesome, undeniably so.. It is true there are so many ways to grow weed and personally I wanna see those grows continued.. Our mumbo jumbo is not outdated, take that back!!  Here's a link just on the green light thing it isn't the argument I just like it

Photosynthesis thrown down real nice with awesome illustrations
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/photosyn.htm


----------



## Brick Top (Oct 7, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Proof is in the putting. I gave my proof not a bunch of regurgitated outdated mumbo jumbo. =)


One thing that will hold back many growers is rejecting scientifically proven botanical facts and instead accepting what someone believes they observed and the incorrect cause and effect they attribute results too. 

What was called "outdated mumbo jumbo" are scientifically proven botanical facts. Scientifically proven facts never become "outdated" and they are never "mumbo jumbo." What is being pawned off as being true, removing leaves to increase production, is nothing more than belief and opinion, not scientifically proven botanical fact.

All the beliefs and opinions that have ever existed and will ever exist will never be enough to prove so much as one single scientifically proven botanical fact to be inaccurate. Not one. Ever. 

Sadly some growers will always have an inexplicable need to reject proven facts and instead believe what they prefer too believe and they will always swear that their inaccurate beliefs and opinions trump scientifically proven facts and in doing so they will hold other growers back from becoming the best they could be.


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 7, 2010)

and the truth shall set you free


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 8, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> What was called "outdated mumbo jumbo" are scientifically proven botanical facts. Scientifically proven facts never become "outdated" and they are never "mumbo jumbo." What is being pawned off as being true, removing leaves to increase production, is nothing more than belief and opinion, not scientifically proven botanical fact.


Exactly. I have been posting to cannabis forums for 15 years or more and seen more crap than you can imagine. I have never seen anyone refer anyone to a scientifically conducted test, except for me and that was a referral to Mel Franks' studies using data taken from the U. of Miss. tests on cannabis. The graphs alone are worth the book's cost.

Regards to another old pHart,
UB  

.


----------



## AbsoluteChron (Oct 8, 2010)

Not a single one of you "never under any circumstances should you trim or train" guys seem to acknowledge that the OP is discussing a CFL grow. It was never specified whether you would be trimming fan leaves from the top or bottom, and if you have ever grown with flouros then you should know how difficult it is to get uniform light coverage of adequate intensity to properly bud the entire plant. You all seem to love the fan leaves as solar panels analogy, almost like solar panels are inherently and unquestionably productive. What is the point in putting a solar panel in the shade? Unproductive leaves still use plant energy to maintain themselves, so if they will not be producing bud (especially at the bottom of the plant) then removing them may be beneficial. I don't think anyone ever said that fan leaves as a whole are unnecessary, simply that there are situations where removing some may increase production.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

All I hear is a lot of lips flapping again. AGAIN why are my yields so high if your scientifically proven facts hold any water when it pertains to MAXIMUM yield with a Marijuana plant ? Yeah and at one time it was a scentifically proven fact that the world was flat lol. 5 Years of indoor growing and you act like its some fluke my yields went up 300%. I'll also ask again have either of you two grown a 64 plant per light tray ? You two are simply blinded by your own arrogance. Try to actually grow in this fashion and come to your own obvious conclusion before bashing someone else for growing a certain way. Why is it that every single person that gets really high yields cuts leaves? I am talking well over the gram per watt range. All the people saying dont cut them are the ones with average yielding grows? Hmmm doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this one out fellas. You keep reading those books and I'll keep growing with my pixie dust and magic plants that defy all scientifically proven botanical facts. LOL

Canopy management is critical to growing maximum yield in a small indoor grow period. Getting light to bud sights really is overrated. You guys can argue all you want but at the end of the day I am growing more dried bud then you ever will using those DATED scientific botanical facts. Join the present century guys and get over yourselves. People unwilling to change will never get different results.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

AbsoluteChron said:


> Not a single one of you "never under any circumstances should you trim or train" guys seem to acknowledge that the OP is discussing a CFL grow. It was never specified whether you would be trimming fan leaves from the top or bottom, and if you have ever grown with flouros then you should know how difficult it is to get uniform light coverage of adequate intensity to properly bud the entire plant. You all seem to love the fan leaves as solar panels analogy, almost like solar panels are inherently and unquestionably productive. What is the point in putting a solar panel in the shade? Unproductive leaves still use plant energy to maintain themselves, so if they will not be producing bud (especially at the bottom of the plant) then removing them may be beneficial. I don't think anyone ever said that fan leaves as a whole are unnecessary, simply that there are situations where removing some may increase production.


Well said and EXACTLY correct. I have stated numerous times you dont just go hacking leaves out. You need to keep them until about day 21 of bloom at which point they can be safely removed to increase light intensity to many more bud sites. These guys clearly have never grown under these circumstances and it just wont ever make sense to their short sited brains unless they do it themselves. Even with plenty of pictures PROVING that you dont need all those fan leaves to get the highest possible yields they still dismiss it. Cant teach an old dog new tricks I suppose. Sad but true.


----------



## OZUT (Oct 8, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> 64 plant per light tray ?


You're pulling weight because of the number of plants you have. Assuming you have 1,000 watts over that tray and assuming you're pulling 1.5 grams per watt as you said, that's 1,500 grams out of 64 plants, which is 23.4 grams per plant and 3.3 pounds total out of 64 plants. Not really the best grow possible. You're letting yourself get blinded by the grams per watt calculations. My master kushes consistently give me 3-4 ounces per plant using a 600 watt...That's 84-112 grams per plant. In my grow, usually every 11-12 plants gets it's own light (if you want to break it down like that). That means I pull 1,200 grams per light using a 600 (not even using 112 grams per plant)....So if you compare my 1,200 grams with 12 plants and 600 watts - to your 64 plants, 1,500 grams with a 1,000 watts, you'll see what everyone is talking about. The blue dreams under my 1,000 watt lights, will easily give me 1,000 grams. Keep in mind, I don't need 64 plants to pull that weight.

You do a sog grow. You crowd everything right next to each other and you're going to have a lot more shade than people that don't do SOG. You need to trim to bottom of your bitches because they will get almost 0 light. You couldn't do a SOG without having to trim some leaves....But that doesn't mean pulling leaves is beneficial and to do so on a non-SOG grow would increase yield...


----------



## Serapis (Oct 8, 2010)

I don't understand the arguments here. To each his own. I believe in removing leaves that block bud sites, seems logical to me, so I do it. Some say bend or tie the leaf out of the way.... doing so shades it and it then becomes unproductive, so why not just cut it to begin with? Many plants are pruned to encourage growth and to stimulate them. This is a botanical fact. I don't understand the crowd that says "do not touch that leaf". That is plain silliness. Ed Rosenthall is laughing his ass off at you.


----------



## AbsoluteChron (Oct 8, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> One thing that will hold back many growers is rejecting scientifically proven botanical facts and instead accepting what someone believes they observed and the incorrect cause and effect they attribute results too.
> 
> What was called "outdated mumbo jumbo" are scientifically proven botanical facts. Scientifically proven facts never become "outdated" and they are never "mumbo jumbo." What is being pawned off as being true, removing leaves to increase production, is nothing more than belief and opinion, not scientifically proven botanical fact.
> 
> ...


Science is constantly updated to account for unforeseen or neglected variables. Holding a rigid concept of what is fact will only hold you back. Do you honestly think science hasn't changed growing in the last 15 years? Standards for optimal growth have undoubtedly become much higher, and there is really no reason to think that with more observation, study and accounting for more variables those standards are not only going to continue to rise. I suppose you also think mapping the cannabis genome is a pointless endeavor, because we've known everything there is to know about the science of growing cannabis for 15 to 30 years.


----------



## OZUT (Oct 8, 2010)

AbsoluteChron said:


> Science is constantly updated to account for unforeseen or neglected variables. Holding a rigid concept of what is fact will only hold you back. Do you honestly think science hasn't changed growing in the last 15 years? Standards for optimal growth have undoubtedly become much higher, and there is really no reason to think that with more observation, study and accounting for more variables those standards are not only going to continue to rise. I suppose you also think mapping the cannabis genome is a pointless endeavor, because we've known everything there is to know about the science of growing cannabis for 15 to 30 years.


Exactly!!!! But there's nothing proven that removing leaves increases production other than "claims" by average growers...However, there's a ton of info that proves leaving the leaves increases production and not just claims and theories by growers. Outdoors, it would be silly to touch them because you get light from every corner of the plant. Indoors, your light isn't going to penetrate as deep as you want it, so there's 2 things you can do....Trim the bottom of the plant and forget about the bottom growth, which pushes more into the top buds, or you go with the "fan leaf trimming theory" and hack the plant up. That leaf you hack does a lot more harm then the good you get with deeper light penetration. It does no good to get the light all the way down to the base of your plant if there are no leaves to receive and capture that light...


----------



## OZUT (Oct 8, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I don't understand the arguments here. To each his own. I believe in removing leaves that block bud sites, seems logical to me, so I do it. Some say bend or tie the leaf out of the way.... doing so shades it and it then becomes unproductive, so why not just cut it to begin with? Many plants are pruned to encourage growth and to stimulate them. This is a botanical fact. I don't understand the crowd that says "do not touch that leaf". That is plain silliness. Ed Rosenthall is laughing his ass off at you.


Pruning isn't removing fan leaves and not touching the bud sites. The concept of pruning is removing the small fruit for the benefit of the larger one. Again, cutting fan leaves is not pruning. By cutting fan leaves, you're not redirecting anything, you're handicapping. Take any fruit tree for example...If you have a branch and that branch has 3 pieces of fruit on it....removing the smaller ones, benefits the larger one...Removing the leaf, handicapps all of them. Take your plant for instance...If you PRUNE the bottom 1/3 of it, the top 2/3 gives you bigger and better bud. Your flowers are what rob your plant of energy, not the leaf....If you want to redirect energy, get rid of the popcorn buds at the bottom


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 8, 2010)

AbsoluteChron said:


> Do you honestly think science hasn't changed growing in the last 15 years?


No, science hasn't changed squat in the last 15 years, and cannabis forums and vendors have only served to add to the hype. It seems the more hype, mystique, and romanticsm folks can muster up, the deeper the shit gets when it comes to growing a weed.

Botany is botany, and it hasn't changed in a millenium.

I really can't understand the interest in forums, mostly noobs, who are so bent on getting light to a bud site. Give me a plausible reason. If you gonna hold fast to a paradigm, at least make sure it has merit.

Just the title of this thread ought to tell you something - that ridiculous parroting with false beliief systems rule in cannabis forums. *Pruning - When do you take all the leaves off?* Why not at the beginning? They're just in the way, hah!

The advocates for removing the very unit that produces bud have never read a book on botany or plant culture, taken a course in botany, or talked to someone who understands botany on a professional level.



> Standards for optimal growth have undoubtedly become much higher, and there is really no reason to think that with more observation, study and accounting for more variables those standards are not only going to continue to rise. I suppose you also think mapping the cannabis genome is a pointless endeavor, because we've known everything there is to know about the science of growing cannabis for 15 to 30 years.


Mapping the cannabis genome and using photon collectors to your advantage are two unrelated issues.

BTW Bricktop, R and FR light penetrates leaves leaving the green color of the chlorophyll.

Speaking of fruit production - it takes 13-15 leaves to support/ripen one grape cluster. Go figure

UB


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

Man you are thick headed Uncle Ben. You keep skirting the issues I have repeatedly brought up to you. FYI you are the pot calling the kettle black with your parroting. 

1, Have you grown 64 plants under a light with or without removing leaves ?

2, Have you ever yielded anywhere close to 3+ lbs per light?

3, Why do my plants get such excellent yields Assuming over 3 lbs per light is excellent when I remove all my fan leaves at week 3 in bloom ?

4, Have you ever removed leaves in a really over crowded grow ?

5, How can my indoor plants with all those fan leaves removed have buds as big or bigger as my outdoor plants with no leaves removed ? Seems impossible if your so called facts held any merit at all.

You can flap all you want about it shouldnt work but it for a fact does. I have done many many back to back comparisons and it has ALWAYS yielded far better by removing them. According to you it should hurt my yield not increase it. Funny isnt it ??? Please try and explain this if you wish to remain so hell bent on making these false claims you know little to nothing about .

Personally I listen to people that have reached the goals I try to attain. Not to people who only listen to what they read and who dont have the personal experience. I listened and did my own experiments to find out the truth .


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Exactly!!!! But there's nothing proven that removing leaves increases production other than "claims" by average growers...However, there's a ton of info that proves leaving the leaves increases production and not just claims and theories by growers. Outdoors, it would be silly to touch them because you get light from every corner of the plant. Indoors, your light isn't going to penetrate as deep as you want it, so there's 2 things you can do....Trim the bottom of the plant and forget about the bottom growth, which pushes more into the top buds, or you go with the "fan leaf trimming theory" and hack the plant up. That leaf you hack does a lot more harm then the good you get with deeper light penetration. It does no good to get the light all the way down to the base of your plant if there are no leaves to receive and capture that light...



Wow so now me getting 1600-1900 grams consistantly on one light without using CO2 is considered "Average" .. LOL =)


----------



## OZUT (Oct 8, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Wow so now me getting 1600-1900 grams consistantly on one light without using CO2 is considered "Average" .. LOL =)


You don't get it.....If you have to use 64 plants to get that much than yeah, that's not too good. That's why I said you're letting the grams per watt calculation fool you. I can put 1,000 plants in my bedroom and just use my 8 recessed lights, then claim I got 200 grams per watt (or whatever amount) but that's not a good measurement of how good I grow or how good my operation is. You might be pulling 1,500 grams off of one light, but at the same time you're only pulling 23 grams per plant. What would you say to someone that says he gets less than an ounce per plant using 1,000 watts? There are a lot of variables that you need to consider to establish a grow as efficient and grams per watt is not the only way. You might be limited on how much power you can run and how much space you have, in which case a SOG set up like yours might work. 1 light with a lot of plants in a small space. But if you got 12 lights going, your setup isn't really the best option. You would end up needing 768 plants. Make sense? 

What I said about your _*"SOG*"_ grow is that you do need to trim off a lot of leaves just because you crowd 64 plants under 1 light but that doesn't mean removing fan leaves increases production on a grow that's not a SOG operation. Get it?

You're trying to compare 2 completely different styles of growing that are not really comparable as far as this issue in concerned and then trying to use your results to argue your position.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

OZUT said:


> You don't get it.....If you have to use 64 plants to get that much than yeah, that's not too good. That's why I said you're letting the grams per watt calculation fool you. I can put 1,000 plants in my bedroom and just use my 8 recessed lights, then claim I got 200 grams per watt (or whatever amount) but that's not a good measurement of how good I grow or how good my operation is. You might be pulling 1,500 grams off of one light, but at the same time you're only pulling 23 grams per plant. What would you say to someone that says he gets less than an ounce per plant using 1,000 watts? There are a lot of variables that you need to consider to establish a grow as efficient and grams per watt is not the only way. You might be limited on how much power you can run and how much space you have, in which case a SOG set up like yours might work. 1 light with a lot of plants in a small space. But if you got 12 lights going, your setup isn't really the best option. You would end up needing 768 plants. Make sense?
> 
> What I said about your _*"SOG*"_ grow is that you do need to trim off a lot of leaves just because you crowd 64 plants under 1 light but that doesn't mean removing fan leaves increases production on a grow that's not a SOG operation. Get it?
> 
> You're trying to compare 2 completely different styles of growing that are not really comparable as far as this issue in concerned and then trying to use your results to argue your position.


LOL are you being serious? Sounds like you got a little lost in your logic to me. Pulling anything over 2 lbs a single light is very good. Pulling over 3 lbs is as good as it gets. I have read these forums for a long time and know fact only a tiny percentage gets even 2 lbs a light and only a couple percent if that get anywhere near the realm of 3+ lbs. Doesnt matter how you are growing it is about how efficient your grow space is. If I am getting more yield in my 4X4 grow space then you my grow is being more productive hence more successful. To make it simpler if Grower A: gets 20 lbs a year and grower B: gets 10 lbs a year both in the same sized space with the same amount of lighting grower A: is much more efficient and productive then grower B: . My bloom trays also stay in full bloom 52 weeks a year. Have to say I am very surprised anyone would actually try and say this yield isnt good when it for a fact is in the top few percent.

I do however agree that removing leaves on a non SOG isnt necessary. I never said it was and dont do it outdoors either. I never once said to remove fan leaves from a non SOG grow. Clearly though to make a blanket statement as others have done that removing leaves hurts the plants and decreases yield is flat out wrong. I proved that it is not always the case with actual MJ grows including pics, they just quote books they read and that it "shouldnt" work.


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 8, 2010)

How the hell are you doing that on a 1000w light.. Please link your journal I couldn't find it. I am pulling a pound this time off of 1600w, true I can't grow 64 plants but I wanna see yours for sure.


----------



## OZUT (Oct 8, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> LOL are you being serious? Sounds like you got a little lost in your logic to me. Pulling anything over 2 lbs a single light is very good. Pulling over 3 lbs is as good as it gets. I have read these forums for a long time and know fact only a tiny percentage gets even 2 lbs a light and only a couple percent if that get anywhere near the realm of 3+ lbs. Doesnt matter how you are growing it is about how efficient your grow space is. If I am getting more yield in my 4X4 grow space then you my grow is being more productive hence more successful. To make it simpler if Grower A: gets 20 lbs a year and grower B: gets 10 lbs a year both in the same sized space with the same amount of lighting grower A: is much more efficient and productive then grower B: . My bloom trays also stay in full bloom 52 weeks a year. Have to say I am very surprised anyone would actually try and say this yield isnt good when it for a fact is in the top few percent.
> 
> I do however agree that removing leaves on a non SOG isnt necessary. I never said it was and dont do it outdoors either. I never once said to remove fan leaves from a non SOG grow. Clearly though to make a blanket statement as others have done that removing leaves hurts the plants and decreases yield is flat out wrong. I proved that it is not always the case with actual MJ grows including pics, they just quote books they read and that it "shouldnt" work.


You're considering everything except the number of plants you're using. 3 pounds a light is fantastic, no doubt. 3 pounds from 64 plants is not that great. For instance, you said you're getting 2 pounds a light and you think that's great. You need 64 plants to get those 2 pounds. I get just over 2 pounds from 12 blue dreams under a single 1,000 watt light. Now you tell me which is more efficent? I run 12 lights. 9 are 1,000 and 3 are 600's. To style my grow like yours, I would need 768 plants flowering. Why would I do that, when I can pull the same weight with only 110-130 plants? I have a separate veg room that is constantly running and my flower room gets absolutely no down time. I won't even go into the work involved with caring for 768 plants. My point is, you can't just judge the grow by grams per watt. You must consider all the other elements including the number of plants you're using. The reason I gave you the 1,000 plants in a bedroom example is to show you that grams per watt is not the most accurate way to judge it. If I have 1,000 plants in a room with nothing more than (*8* 30 watt bulbs....that's 240 watts for 1000 plants. If every plant give me 1 lousy gram, then I would have 1,000 grams off of 240 watts which is 4.1 grams per watt. By your logic, that's a great grow, but it's not. 


As for the 2nd part of your response, you just said what everyone has been saying on this thread. Removing the leaves is not necessary. What everyone else isn't getting is that you're talking about a SOG grow and everyone else is talking about a regular grow. I also agree with you that most people just quote books and of all the people that say the "leaf pickers" are just following baseless forum theories, that just as many people are following the "non leaf pickers" without really understanding shit about the subject.


----------



## OZUT (Oct 8, 2010)

MeJuana said:


> How the hell are you doing that on a 1000w light.. Please link your journal I couldn't find it. I am pulling a pound this time off of 1600w, true I can't grow 64 plants but I wanna see yours for sure.



You can easily pull 2-3 pounds a tray with SOG. I've got a friend that only does SOG and he averages 5 pounds per 4x8 tray....


----------



## Serapis (Oct 8, 2010)

can't we all just grow along?


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

sorry double post


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

MeJuana said:


> How the hell are you doing that on a 1000w light.. Please link your journal I couldn't find it. I am pulling a pound this time off of 1600w, true I can't grow 64 plants but I wanna see yours for sure.



64 plants on a 4X4 tray

Good yielding strain from a known mother if possible I hit 1900 with Chronic White Widow AKA Fruity Chronic. Averaged 30 grams per plant dried and cut. Most others will hit about 25 gram average including Super Skunk, Agent Orange, ICE, Sweet Tooth etc.

Lots of fresh air or CO2. I use atleast double the suggested air volume in my room.

1000 watt Hortilux bulb and air cooled hood

I use 5 inch pots with hydroton. Ebb and Flow

1300 PPM from week one up to 1500 PPM after about week 3. 

I use MAxibloom by GH, Gravity, Snow Storm Ultra, MOAB and Floracious Plus


I get the plants into a healthy veg state where they are just starting to take off and put thme in the bloom room from 6-8 inches tall. They end up 18-20 inches tall.

Oh and most importantly cut all the fan leaves off at day 21 of bloom or you will end up with a leaf grow instead of the bud grow =)


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

OZUT said:


> You can easily pull 2-3 pounds a tray with SOG. I've got a friend that only does SOG and he averages 5 pounds per 4x8 tray....


LOL I dont think you really know what you are talking about no offense. I am talking about up to 8.5 lbs on a 4X8 tray. No it isnt easy to get 2-3 lbs on a 4X4 tray. Sorry but most people run closer to a 1 to 1.5 pounds on a 4X4 tray. Seen LOTS of threads talking about yields in here and other boards to know this to be true. Most people HOPE to get 1 gram per watt let alone almost 2 grams per watt. Not trying to be offensive but when you talk about being "easy" it couldnt be further from the truth.


----------



## OZUT (Oct 8, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> LOL I dont think you really know what you are talking about no offense. I am talking about up to 8.5 lbs on a 4X8 tray. No it isnt easy to get 2-3 lbs on a 4X4 tray. Sorry but most people run closer to a 1 to 1.5 pounds on a 4X4 tray. Seen LOTS of threads talking about yields in here and other boards to know this to be true. Most people HOPE to get 1 gram per watt let alone almost 2 grams per watt. Not trying to be offensive but when you talk about being "easy" it couldnt be further from the truth.


I said I have a friend that pulls 5 pounds per 4x8 tray. I'm posting what I have seen while you're talking about what you've read on the internet. You're so wound up and lost with your grams per watt logic that you really can't see or acknowledge anything past that. If you need 64 plants in a 4x4 tray with a 1,000 watt light on them and all the effort that comes with a grow to simply pull 16 ounces then you really need to reevaluate things. You can get the exact same results with 7 or 8 or even 10 plants so why would you take on 64? The entire purpose of SOG is to use limited space as efficiently as possible. Isn't 10 plants yielding the same as 64 plants in the same space more efficient? Do you see how flawed your arguments are in all this? The only thing you have to say is gram per watt. You're like a parrot that hasn't developed it's vocabulary and library of phrases. No offense


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 8, 2010)

Can we forego the dick measurements please? You're offering anecdotal evidence without any tangible, verifiable proof. As far as I'm concerned you blowhards have a 2 incher that shoots blanks.

UB


----------



## leftreartire (Oct 8, 2010)

i can see removing a large leaf that could be covering up 20 smaller leafs. i can see removing that one, but as far as to remove all the leafs just stupid. god doesnt have little elves that go around removing all the leafs on tomatoe plants for them to fruit....leave the leaves alone unless they are yellow, wilted blocking 20 other leafs, or covered in mites...


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

OZUT said:


> I said I have a friend that pulls 5 pounds per 4x8 tray. I'm posting what I have seen while you're talking about what you've read on the internet. You're so wound up and lost with your grams per watt logic that you really can't see or acknowledge anything past that. If you need 64 plants in a 4x4 tray with a 1,000 watt light on them and all the effort that comes with a grow to simply pull 16 ounces then you really need to reevaluate things. You can get the exact same results with 7 or 8 or even 10 plants so why would you take on 64? The entire purpose of SOG is to use limited space as efficiently as possible. Isn't 10 plants yielding the same as 64 plants in the same space more efficient? Do you see how flawed your arguments are in all this? The only thing you have to say is gram per watt. You're like a parrot that hasn't developed it's vocabulary and library of phrases. No offense


Wow you must be REALLY stoned for this to make sense to you.... I am posting what I grow, pay attention son. I get a lot more yield then you or your friend in the same space but somehow that is perceived by you as a negative ??? LOL When you or your friend start yielding over 8 lbs on a 4X8 tray then feel free to say something. Your math is very off dude what else can I say. Wasnt trying to start something with you but for you to actually say that nearly 2 grams per watt or over a quarter pound per SQ foot or over 4 lbs per 4X tray is average is a complete joke as is your very fuzzy math. Where are you getting that you or your friend is yielding as much let alone more ? Stoner math for the loss bro. You keep trying to make sense of it and keep coming up emtpy. Glad I dont post in here while stoned or I would look as bad as you do right now.... 



Just shy of 60 lbs per year on a single 4X8 tray with Chronic White Widow and you are actually trying to make that somehow look bad. Best laugh I have ever had on this board I must admit =)


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Can we forego the dick measurements please? You're offering anecdotal evidence without any tangible, verifiable proof. As far as I'm concerned you blowhards have a 2 incher that shoots blanks.
> 
> UB


Here are some 2 inchers shooting blanks in Uncle Bens world. Yep you are right cutting them thar leaves rally messed them plants up Billy Bob .... Gotta love people that spout their argument with ZERO proof, nothing at all then actually critique the people who do saying it isnt proof enough. In what world does your logic seem sound Ben ? Its like saying someone didnt cheat while they are being shown a video of themselves cheating. You two must smoke the same stuff I guess. 


























These ladies are only 5 weeks in t bloom as well.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 8, 2010)

leftreartire said:


> i can see removing a large leaf that could be covering up 20 smaller leafs. i can see removing that one, but as far as to remove all the leafs just stupid. god doesnt have little elves that go around removing all the leafs on tomatoe plants for them to fruit....leave the leaves alone unless they are yellow, wilted blocking 20 other leafs, or covered in mites...



No one ever said to remove all the leaves just the fan leaves and only after 3 weeks in to bloom. See pictures above to see how stupid it is.


----------



## 808toker (Oct 8, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> No one ever said to remove all the leaves just the fan leaves and only after 3 weeks in to bloom. See pictures above to see how stupid it is.


 3 weeks into bloom is pretty early to me....especially if your growing a strain with some sativa inside it...


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 9, 2010)

thx for the pics dlively11 those look nice..


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 9, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Here are some 2 inchers shooting blanks in Uncle Bens world. Yep you are right cutting them thar leaves rally messed them plants up Billy Bob .... Gotta love people that spout their argument with ZERO proof, nothing at all then actually critique the people who do saying it isnt proof enough.


Ahhhhhhh, more chest beating. I can cherry pick photos too to make my case.

What's your point other than your insatiable need to argue against the laws of nature? Here are some indica dom plants with dark green, large photon collectors left intact as mama nature intended it to be. There have been many others posted here and over the years, you'll just have to search out my attachments, not that your mind isn't already made up. These were crammed into a small space without any side lighting.






Last shot is a secondary harvest from one of the plants. _*You know the area, the bottom where no light reaches.*_ 



> No one ever said to remove all the leaves just the fan leaves and only after 3 weeks in to bloom. See pictures above to see how stupid it is.


So you're removing the most efficient collector of photons, THE photosynthesis aficionale, and 3 weeks into bloom when the plant needs all the simple and complex carbos it can get until harvest! Gawd, this is too funny! 3 weeks eh? Not 1.5 or 6.25? Now that's some good ol' forum voodoo magic.... yess sah tis.

Being that this was erroneously posted in 'Advanced Techniques' by someone who doesn't understand what makes a plant tick (but has been sucked into inaccurate but trendy forum popular thought).....all I can say is it's typical Advanced Stupidity. Come on people, get away from cannabis forums for a while and get your fanny into some regular gardening forums where you might learn something bonafide. The basic lessons learned in a solid gardening forum just might be your shortcut to success. 

UB
.


----------



## jeffbelize (Oct 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben...Stop wasting your time with these people!..They dont know any thing!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 9, 2010)

jeffbelize said:


> Uncle Ben...Stop wasting your time with these people!..They dont know any thing!


Yep, flip me over on this fire and call me done.

UB


----------



## AbsoluteChron (Oct 9, 2010)

I don't really see why it's so hard to understand the SOG example. Dlively is just saying that there is no one answer. Even the most thick headed person should reasonably be able to recognize that there is a difference between trimming a single fan leaf and trimming all of the fan leaves. The plant numbers are completely immaterial because the most limiting factor in the indoor grow is the lighting. For example, Dlively cannot simply just go out and plant those same 64 plants in an indoor room measuring 100 x 100 feet with the same lighting and expect the same results. He must work within the footprint of the reflector, not too close to burn the leaves, and not so far away that the PAR values drop off and growth is diminished. The main benefit to increasing your plant numbers is to shorten veg time.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 9, 2010)

I transplanted my ladies into 3 gallon pots yesterday and broke out the Fiskars to do some trimming. I had never thinned the plants before but decided to do it and follow some new school advice. It was amazing how many bud sites were hiding behind fan leaves. On my colas, I trimmed off every other fan leaf from the bottom, so there are alternating leaves. The plants look better already and I can't wait to see the previously hidden bud sites begin to stretch up. I am in week 3 of 12/12 and week 2 of actual flowering.


----------



## 808toker (Oct 9, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I transplanted my ladies into 3 gallon pots yesterday and broke out the Fiskars to do some trimming. I had never thinned the plants before but decided to do it and follow some new school advice. It was amazing how many bud sites were hiding behind fan leaves. On my colas, I trimmed off every other fan leaf from the bottom, so there are alternating leaves. The plants look better already and I can't wait to see the previously hidden bud sites begin to stretch up. I am in week 3 of 12/12 and week 2 of actual flowering.


 THAAATs a better way...i wouldent cut every other leaf as that seems like alot but i would defiantly cut the ones covering the buds unless there small one and whatevers dead i think thats the ONLY time to cut alot of leaves off


----------



## Serapis (Oct 9, 2010)

I took about 1/3 of the leaves off of each plant. most were from the bottom and in the center. I alternated leaves as I got higher and left the top 6" of the plant alone.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Ahhhhhhh, more chest beating. I can cherry pick photos too to make my case.
> 
> What's your point other than your insatiable need to argue against the laws of nature? Here are some indica dom plants with dark green, large photon collectors left intact as mama nature intended it to be. There have been many others posted here and over the years, you'll just have to search out my attachments, not that your mind isn't already made up. These were crammed into a small space without any side lighting.
> 
> ...


YOU are the one arguing against proven facts placed in front of you. Just like the spouse being cheated on who denies it really happened despite having irrefutable evidence placed in front of them. You arent showing anyone anything with your pictures. Anyone can grow a large single plant. I showed an entire tray to further prove my point since YOU are the one that said my single plant picture wasnt proof enough. I can clearly see from your pics that you grow large plants with large colas. They look great but your yield sure isnt going to be that high grown like that. Looks EXACTLY how I used to grow before I tripled my yields. Nothing wrong with that but you can get much higher yields in your space if you actually listened instead of blasting everyone who grows differently then yourself. Looks like you have maybe 1 large cola for every four that I have and your cola pictures dont look any bigger despite your time wasted vegging them out to get the plants that large. I have almost no veg and NO wasted space in my grow. To each is own but I wasnt the one bashing the way you grow, remember that. 

The reason for cutting at week three is because that is when the plant stops stretching and ends its last bit of vegetative state. At that point the leaves dont serve much purpose. There are tons of other leaves left on the plant just the large fan leaves are removed to get better light penetration and uncover about 75% of the hidden bud sites. My grows over the last year and even the few pictures I posted PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can get the biggest thickest colas with them removed at week 3. You act like I have some hidden agenda when in fact I am only trying to help people under stand and open their wn eyes instead of blindly listening to old mule headed old dogs like you.

Its under advanced techniques since even old schoolers like you cant wrap your head around new methods of growing. Perfect place for it seeing how 99% of board members new and advanced are misinformed about the removal of leaves. Science would never move forward if everyone thought as you do. Luckily most scientist are willing to explore other theories especially when given damn good proof.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 9, 2010)

Serapis said:


> I took about 1/3 of the leaves off of each plant. most were from the bottom and in the center. I alternated leaves as I got higher and left the top 6" of the plant alone.


Good for you , just try and see what works for your style of growing. I only remove a lot of them because of how many plants there are in the given space. Good for you for thinking on your own and drawing your own conclusion, hopefully others will be willing to explore as well.


----------



## WSRidahs (Oct 9, 2010)

Is anyone willing to do a side by side and post pictures? I think this will prove it once and for all. Same environment, same strain, same nutes, same everything except one is with the all fan leaves and one is without. 

Honestly, my friend and I grow pretty much the same but he always got more than me in dry weight. Plants are LST'd, same nutes except for an additive or two, and I run more light than he does. I run 1000 watts with 4 plants and he runs 600 watts with 2 plants. He vegged under fluorescents and I vegged under a 600 watt mh. His plant was a little over 2 feet in flower after the stretch and mine was over 3 feet. We both do DWC in 5 gallon buckets and ran the same strain. He got almost 8 oz's with all the fan leaves removed and I only got 4.2 oz's with all the fan leaves on. The next time I grew the same strain but removed about half the fan leaves and got almost 6 oz's. On the my next on I'm removing all the fan leaves to see what happens. 

Here's some pics of his plant (fan leaves removes) vs. my plant. Both are Purple Urkel and using House and Garden Aqua Flakes and House and Garden additives. I'm using all of the additives in the H&G line and he isn't. We are both using Great White. Both in 5 gallon DWC. I use 1000 watts over 4 plants and he uses 600 watts over 2 plants. He got almost 8 oz's and I only got 4.2 oz's. 

His plant







My plant


----------



## Serapis (Oct 9, 2010)

More irrefutable proof, plants like to be pruned.


----------



## OZUT (Oct 10, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Wow you must be REALLY stoned for this to make sense to you.... I am posting what I grow, pay attention son. I get a lot more yield then you or your friend in the same space but somehow that is perceived by you as a negative ??? LOL When you or your friend start yielding over 8 lbs on a 4X8 tray then feel free to say something. Your math is very off dude what else can I say. Wasnt trying to start something with you but for you to actually say that nearly 2 grams per watt or over a quarter pound per SQ foot or over 4 lbs per 4X tray is average is a complete joke as is your very fuzzy math. Where are you getting that you or your friend is yielding as much let alone more ? Stoner math for the loss bro. You keep trying to make sense of it and keep coming up emtpy. Glad I dont post in here while stoned or I would look as bad as you do right now....
> 
> 
> 
> Just shy of 60 lbs per year on a single 4X8 tray with Chronic White Widow and you are actually trying to make that somehow look bad. Best laugh I have ever had on this board I must admit =)


How about you grab yourself a calculator and let it do the math for you...You're saying that most SOG growers get 1 or 2 pounds per tray. That's 16-32 ounces right? Even using your high number, that's 32 ounces coming from 64 plants. That's 1/2 an ounce per plant.....You with me so far? Now isn't it more convenient to grow 12 plants in a NON-SOG setup averaging 2 1/2 ounces per plant and getting the same 32 ounces that you needed 64 plants to get? I gave you the example of the 1,000 plants example to show you that it's not all about grams per watt...

Now if you really paid attention, you'de know that I never said that your 2 grams per watt is average...I didn't knock that...What I've been saying is that you're so lost with your grams per watt logic that you're not taking into consideration everything else. You'de also know that I never said your grow isn't efficent or that you shouldn't take off fan leaves in your setup because leaving them on wouldn't work for you...All you're trying to do is draw attention to your claim that you're pulling 8 pounds a tray...

But whatever dude, you go pull your 8 pounds a tray, or your 2 grams per watt or however you wanna measure your shit


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 10, 2010)

OZUT said:


> How about you grab yourself a calculator and let it do the math for you...You're saying that most SOG growers get 1 or 2 pounds per tray. That's 16-32 ounces right? Even using your high number, that's 32 ounces coming from 64 plants. That's 1/2 an ounce per plant.....You with me so far? Now isn't it more convenient to grow 12 plants in a NON-SOG setup averaging 2 1/2 ounces per plant and getting the same 32 ounces that you needed 64 plants to get? I gave you the example of the 1,000 plants example to show you that it's not all about grams per watt...
> 
> Now if you really paid attention, you'de know that I never said that your 2 grams per watt is average...I didn't knock that...What I've been saying is that you're so lost with your grams per watt logic that you're not taking into consideration everything else. You'de also know that I never said your grow isn't efficent or that you shouldn't take off fan leaves in your setup because leaving them on wouldn't work for you...All you're trying to do is draw attention to your claim that you're pulling 8 pounds a tray...
> 
> But whatever dude, you go pull your 8 pounds a tray, or your 2 grams per watt or however you wanna measure your shit


You know I was very clear from the start what my yields were so I really dont get what your problem is. I guess I could spell it out for you again;

30 grams per plant average

30 X 4 = 120 grams per SQ foot

64 X 120 = 1920 grams on one tray every 8 weeks

1920 grams = 8.5 lbs

You and your friend are pulling a LOT less then this. 

You keep pestering me about the yields as if they werent that good when in fact they are extremely good even for people using CO2 which I dont. 

What do you mean everything else ? I am growing a LOT more in my given space then you, your friend or 99% of other growers out there. That is called growing more efficiently any way you would like to slice it. I cant belive you are even trying to argue this fact......

What gives ?


----------



## AbsoluteChron (Oct 10, 2010)

OZUT, you are failing to understand that LIGHTING is the most limiting factor in most indoor grows. That is why basically everyone uses that as the benchmark.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 10, 2010)

OZUT said:


> You're considering everything except the number of plants you're using. 3 pounds a light is fantastic, no doubt. 3 pounds from 64 plants is not that great. For instance, you said you're getting 2 pounds a light and you think that's great. You need 64 plants to get those 2 pounds. I get just over 2 pounds from 12 blue dreams under a single 1,000 watt light. Now you tell me which is more efficent? I run 12 lights. 9 are 1,000 and 3 are 600's. To style my grow like yours, I would need 768 plants flowering. Why would I do that, when I can pull the same weight with only 110-130 plants? I have a separate veg room that is constantly running and my flower room gets absolutely no down time. I won't even go into the work involved with caring for 768 plants. My point is, you can't just judge the grow by grams per watt. You must consider all the other elements including the number of plants you're using. The reason I gave you the 1,000 plants in a bedroom example is to show you that grams per watt is not the most accurate way to judge it. If I have 1,000 plants in a room with nothing more than (*8* 30 watt bulbs....that's 240 watts for 1000 plants. If every plant give me 1 lousy gram, then I would have 1,000 grams off of 240 watts which is 4.1 grams per watt. By your logic, that's a great grow, but it's not.
> 
> 
> As for the 2nd part of your response, you just said what everyone has been saying on this thread. Removing the leaves is not necessary. What everyone else isn't getting is that you're talking about a SOG grow and everyone else is talking about a regular grow. I also agree with you that most people just quote books and of all the people that say the "leaf pickers" are just following baseless forum theories, that just as many people are following the "non leaf pickers" without really understanding shit about the subject.



Well right here you said it isnt great. Also if someone was actually getting over 2 lbs with 240 watts of CFLs that would be great but it isnt going to happen. Look I think you and I werent understanding each other perhaps as I can see you havent been flat out bashing like others have. Yes it is more of a PITA doing 6 plants a light and I miss the ease of growing 12-16 plants in that space. The only reason I do it is becuase I am able to get a much higher yield which was the point of this discussion. Cutting ;leaves helps on this type of grow maybe not others. 

Peace ?


----------



## Civil.Dis0bedience (Oct 10, 2010)

I just read this article on cannagraphic..good read. Defoliation-Hi-Yield Technique http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?threadid=174163


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 10, 2010)

Civil.Dis0bedience said:


> I just read this article on cannagraphic..good read. Defoliation-Hi-Yield Technique http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?threadid=174163


Good find. I'll post my results in there as well. Its amazing how people can be so closed minded even when it comes to growing pot.


----------



## Civil.Dis0bedience (Oct 10, 2010)

Every time i see an experiment being done it seems the de-leafing is having great results. I'm dont know much about plants, how they grow, what exactly their leaves do ect ect. But you cant argue with results. I have 12 plants right now almost 2 months into veg. I'll pluck the majority of leaves off 6 and leave sex. Tell you how they look when they go into flower in a few weeks.


----------



## Civil.Dis0bedience (Oct 10, 2010)

leave 6 ^ (so fuckinn high)...side note..i want fuckinn BLUE DREAM seeds SOO bad


----------



## The Ruiner (Oct 10, 2010)

Isnt the answer to this question:

Harvest


----------



## gimmenobammerweed (Oct 10, 2010)

canefan said:


> Is it just me or do other notice this common theme? What the hell is the government school system teaching today? The amount of ignorance, not to be confused with stupidity, that appears in some of these forums is amazing. It appears that today the students are not even taught the most basic biology in school today, nor taught how to research a subject. One more thing and I will get off my rant, why do these people that have "heard" or "from my test results" never tell or show us their results or where they heard it?
> For the people that truly believe there is no difference in pulling leaves or leaving the plant to produce what nature engineered where are the results or pictures showing side by side comparisons to support a claim that totally goes against the laws of nature. Granted marijuana is an amazing plant but it cannot even make up energy out of thin air to produce a bigger bud. For the believers there is no difference and that by removing the leaves the plant will direct its remaining energies to producing bigger buds. Here is an article done by Texas about molasses, in it the study shows where the sugars the plant takes up from its roots go to a plant. The first place is not the buds it is the leaves. If you pull the leaves the plant will redirect it sugars and other nutes to produce new leaves.
> IMHO most growers need to spend some quality time reading not only forums to learn, but more importantly learn how to research biology. Google can be your friend, so can a high school or college biology book.
> Sorry for the rant but I feel better and I didn't even berate anyone. Happy Growing


u should get a lab coat and start a youtube series where u can teach everyone basic biology and the CORRECT way to cultivate.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Good find. I'll post my results in there as well. Its amazing how people can be so closed minded even when it comes to growing pot.


Many people mistake observation and data as supporting a conclusion when there are other factors which could be responsible for the observed phenomenon and data. It's a correlation/causation mistake.

Like I said before, over my many years of posting at cannabis forums, I have yet to see anything remotely valid when it comes to a bonafide empirical study using a control group, proper standarized testing techniques, proper methods, etc. If it's a legitimate, non-partisan, non-agenda based study done by say.....a university, I'll buy into it. But, it's more like seeing what you choose to see, expecting results that you want, being suckered in by anecdotal evidence, parroting (erroneous) popular opinion and such.

IC Mag is just another cannabis forum with a huge share of marijuana nerds and noobs.

UB


----------



## Civil.Dis0bedience (Oct 11, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Many people mistake observation and data as supporting a conclusion when there are other factors which could be responsible for the observed phenomenon and data. It's a correlation/causation mistake.
> 
> Like I said before, over my many years of posting at cannabis forums, I have yet to see anything remotely valid when it comes to a bonafide empirical study using a control group, proper standarized testing techniques, proper methods, etc. If it's a legitimate, non-partisan, non-agenda based study done by say.....a university, I'll buy into it. But, it's more like seeing what you choose to see, expecting results that you want, being suckered in by anecdotal evidence, parroting (erroneous) popular opinion and such.
> 
> ...


Ay man i've always read that taking the leaves off will HURT your harvest. This is just showing me that people are pulling GREAT yeilds while removing ALL the leaves. I'm not saying this is some miracle technique..it might not even be worth it. But its def proving a lot of what i read wrong. As far as IC Mag i've learned just a much there as i have here...rollitup and ic mag are both great sites!


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 11, 2010)

Uncle Ben is absolutely right, this was never a comparable argument and for most strains I am betting that a cola will not outgrow a full grown plant in the same position. You guys are arguing nonsense and Uncle Ben is absolutely right, he even told you it isn't a comparable argument in the first place and that you would lose if it were in the second place.

But I say Uncle Ben and dlively11 go head to head.. Same strain, he goes cola and Uncle Ben goes 2 or 4 main colas with no leaf removal. The arguing is boring and Uncle Ben won this 3 pages ago or something like that.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 11, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Many people mistake observation and data as supporting a conclusion when there are other factors which could be responsible for the observed phenomenon and data. It's a correlation/causation mistake.
> 
> Like I said before, over my many years of posting at cannabis forums, I have yet to see anything remotely valid when it comes to a bonafide empirical study using a control group, proper standarized testing techniques, proper methods, etc. If it's a legitimate, non-partisan, non-agenda based study done by say.....a university, I'll buy into it. But, it's more like seeing what you choose to see, expecting results that you want, being suckered in by anecdotal evidence, parroting (erroneous) popular opinion and such.
> 
> ...


So results arent enough for you I gather. My 5 years of indoor grows just arent enough real world experience and scientific enough for you either. Back to back trays in the same room with the same exact nutrients same exact conditions and same exact strains resulting in over 2X the yield of the ones with no leaf removal doesnt mean a darn thing.... If thats the case why dont you do a controlled experiment yourself over the next year and post your results instead of coming in threads like this like you actually have any real input on the matter. Then we can all shit all over your shared information as well. Seems fair enough....

You and some other ultra stubborn ultra arrogant growers posting in here just cant come up with a single valid reason how your bullet proof botanical science would allow anyone to yield this much if they are cutting the leaves. Take the whole scientific has to be perfect experiment out of the equation. Simply explain how the yields could be this high. The yield matters very much in this debate. You claim that removing the large fan leaves hurts production yet I have pics and final weights on harvest that TOTALLY debunk this. You cant which is why you keep falling back on your same old BS over and over instead of actually offering anything of real value yourself. Proof is in the putting and you have neither..........


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 11, 2010)

MeJuana said:


> Uncle Ben is absolutely right, this was never a comparable argument and for most strains I am betting that a cola will not outgrow a full grown plant in the same position. You guys are arguing nonsense and Uncle Ben is absolutely right, he even told you it isn't a comparable argument in the first place and that you would lose if it were in the second place.
> 
> But I say Uncle Ben and dlively11 go head to head.. Same strain, he goes cola and Uncle Ben goes 2 or 4 main colas with no leaf removal. The arguing is boring and Uncle Ben won this 3 pages ago or something like that.


He won nothing at all. He didnt offer any proof at all other then quote from some ancient book. We on the other hand have offered pictures and final weights completely disproving what he is parroting when it comes to this style of growing. He can have any strain and any growing conditions he wants and he wont come anywhere close to my yields with his style of growing period.


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 11, 2010)

That is a great idea do you think I can do it with DWC, 1 plant of any of my strains? I don't wanna waste my time what strain do you recommend I don't like candy tasting weed I like a hybrid.

P.S. You read me a little wrong that is my honest opinion, I have no desire to argue any of these old school growing methods and I am completely open minded. I could be alone in my opinion too lol


----------



## 420God (Oct 11, 2010)

Sorry, catching the tail end of this. I read back 2 pages of arguing. What's the verdict, leaves on or off?


----------



## 303 (Oct 11, 2010)

420God said:


> Sorry, catching the tail end of this. I read back 2 pages of arguing. What's the verdict, leaves on or off?


 On........


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 11, 2010)

There's no verdict only information.. dlively11 uses a technique to use the growing tip (the cola) to be an entire plant. In this respect the plants can be close together he covers all of the available area with _growing tips_!!! Hard to beat on a gram per watt perspective and requires a lot of plants to achieve those numbers, you can do this without veg I have seen. Uncle Ben is saying you shouldn't trim your leafs because they are large storage tanks, solar panels basically (quick poor interpretation) and as it has also been stated light penetrates farther than you can see. In this respect one would be limited to just a certain amount of plants and you are trying to yield the most available from that plant. Both are very powerful ideas, it is just a stand off at this point. 

P.S. These are both old school ideas


----------



## 420God (Oct 11, 2010)

MeJuana said:


> There's no verdict only information.. dlively11 uses a technique to use the growing tip (the cola) to be an entire plant. In this respect the plants can be close together he covers all of the available area with _growing tips_!!! Hard to beat on a gram per watt perspective and requires a lot of plants to achieve those numbers, you can do this without veg I have seen. Uncle Ben is saying you shouldn't trim your leafs because they are large storage tanks, solar panels basically (quick poor interpretation) and as it has also been stated light penetrates farther than you can see. In this respect one would be limited to just a certain amount of plants and you are trying to yield the most available from that plant. Both are very powerful ideas, it is just a stand off at this point.
> 
> P.S. These are both old school ideas


Thank you.


----------



## OZUT (Oct 11, 2010)

MeJuana said:


> There's no verdict only information.. dlively11 uses a technique to use the growing tip (the cola) to be an entire plant. In this respect the plants can be close together he covers all of the available area with _growing tips_!!! Hard to beat on a gram per watt perspective and requires a lot of plants to achieve those numbers, you can do this without veg I have seen. Uncle Ben is saying you shouldn't trim your leafs because they are large storage tanks, solar panels basically (quick poor interpretation) and as it has also been stated light penetrates farther than you can see. In this respect one would be limited to just a certain amount of plants and you are trying to yield the most available from that plant. Both are very powerful ideas, it is just a stand off at this point.
> 
> P.S. These are both old school ideas


Pretty much


----------



## OZUT (Oct 11, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Well right here you said it isnt great. Also if someone was actually getting over 2 lbs with 240 watts of CFLs that would be great but it isnt going to happen. Look I think you and I werent understanding each other perhaps as I can see you havent been flat out bashing like others have. Yes it is more of a PITA doing 6 plants a light and I miss the ease of growing 12-16 plants in that space. The only reason I do it is becuase I am able to get a much higher yield which was the point of this discussion. Cutting ;leaves helps on this type of grow maybe not others.
> 
> Peace ?


Actually I didn't bash your removal of leaves or your grow at all...If anything I said that in your operation you NEED to remove those leaves....The only thing I've been arguing with you on is your position on grams per watt in that it's not the only way to judge a grow and you must consider other factors...

At the end of the day, I don't really care much to argue with you or anyone else or compare 1 grow to another....So yeah, peace man....


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 11, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> He won nothing at all. He didnt offer any proof at all other then quote from some ancient book. We on the other hand have offered pictures and final weights completely disproving what he is parroting when it comes to this style of growing. He can have any strain and any growing conditions he wants and he wont come anywhere close to my yields with his style of growing period.


You haven't offered anything other than opinion.

UB


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 12, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> You haven't offered anything other than opinion.
> 
> UB


Then you lack basic reading comprehension and the ability to believe your own eyes when it doesn't agree with your own beliefs. I offered a whole hell of a lot more to this thread then your parroting of old school books and such. Please continue to ignore the facts presented in front of you, I am sure you scared a some of sheep off with your antics. I guess I'll just remain one of the elite growers a little longer so thank you. 
It has gone something like this

UB " I read a book that says trees dont respond well to this technique"

DL " I have done numerous side by side comparisons with all things being equal and have shown this technique increase peach size over 200% "

UB " Sorry my book says this just isnt possible"

DL " Here are numerous pictures showing the peaches didnt fall off the tree with this technique but instead they are over twice as big"

UB "Sorry this is just an opinion not fact science wont allow it so it just cant be true"

DL " 5 years of growing peaches and doing side by side grows of the same peaches in the same orchard from the same mother tree and all the ones I did this too have peaches twice as large as the ones next to them and it means nothing at all and is just an opinion ?! "

UB " Yup pretty much , I am right because you must be wrong according to my book. Pictures dont mean anything, those peaches may look 200% bigger but science wont allow it so it can't be true. Besides if it was true it would mean me and my old dust covered book are wrong and I wont allow that. Once you get another one or two thousand grows under your belt and document it with details and pictures I might consider it a possibility. Well actually no I wont because again it would mean I was wrong. "


DL " SIGH"

UB " By the way, did I mention my book was about growing potatoes ? "


----------



## Brick Top (Oct 12, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> I offered a whole hell of a lot more to this thread then your parroting of old school books and such.


What you claim too be nothing more than the "old school books and such" is actually the sharing of facts, which is something you have not done. You have made claims and shared your own beliefs, none of which have been factually proven as Uncle Ben's information has been. 

I am always amazed how some people can willingly allow themselves to totally reject proven facts and instead totally accept opinions and beliefs. 

It becomes even more amazing when those people need to believe that there is some magical mystical disconnect between cannabis plants and other types of plants, therefore making proven fact not applicable to cannabis plants. 

(In my best Billy Mays voice) But wait, there's more! 

I just love it when those people try to convince others that proven facts have an expiration date on them and are "old school," in hopes that what they say will not be seen for what it actually is, that of course is being incorrect. 

The icing on the cake is when those people attempt to make it appear as if what they believe they might have observed while growing in their basement or closet or attic or in a growbox or maybe a greenhouse or in their backyard is scientific proof and what highly educated people whose life work is the scientific research of plants, performed in controlled environments using the highest tech equipment available, could not possibly be more correct than what they believe they observed when growing in their basement or closet or attic or in a growbox or maybe a greenhouse or in their backyard. 

So Professor Hawking, in your best robot voice, how about backing up your position with scientifically proven facts, rather than relying on your own personal beliefs and opinions, and factually proving Uncle Ben to be wrong? 

I have seen many people attempt to refute Uncle Ben's facts, but I have yet to see so much as one single person come close to succeeding. 

So, are you feeling lucky?


----------



## Civil.Dis0bedience (Oct 12, 2010)

Is it possible that pruning most the leaves off might trigger the roots to grow more? Or maybe that the plants grow way more leaves then they actually need? just thinking in nature there is a lot of things that would naturally prune trees. Wind,branches falling,bugs ect. Maybe a plant over produces leaves to make up for that? idk just stoned thoughts..someone recomend me a couple books on plants grow i want to know them better.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 12, 2010)

Civil.Dis0bedience said:


> Is it possible that pruning most the leaves off might trigger the roots to grow more?


No, quite the opposite. The roots don't just magically appear. They are produced (driven) according to how much simple and complex carbos are manufactured by the leaves with subsequent protein, enzyme, hormones production, etc.

I'm not getting on your case, but your question clearly shows you don't understand botany or plant part functions and it's your type that gets sucked in by inaccurate info and hype so prevalent in cannabis forums. You need to get away from cannabis forums and into a public library seat. Learn nutrition, the function of plant parts, and the influence of hormones. Plant material doesn't produce more leaves than "it needs", it's dumb. Plant material finishes out according to how well all factors come together and how outside influences (it's environment) plays into the situation. It's all in The Balance. If a pecan tree loses half of its leaves in August due to hurricane force winds, the crop will suffer greatly. Same with cannabis or any other plant.

Roots, flowers, all plant material in fact is directly driven by the amount of healthy foliage. I learned many years ago, starting with a commericial greenhouse orchid op, that the more foliar mass I had going into a fall - spring flowering response, the more production I got. It's just simple, common botanical sense. For example, I had a very large phalaenopsis (aka the wedding flower) with about 11 healthy, large green leaves that would produce up to 3 spikes having about 45, 4.5" flowers on each. Those flower spikes would last most of the year. This isn't about books (although that's a good start), it's about experience and learning what makes a plant tick.



UB


----------



## cannabolsus (Oct 12, 2010)

Hey Uncle Ben,

You really need to tone it down a little bit. I am not the one to post very much on this or that cannabis forum(my last post was maybe more than a year ago) but you wrong attitude and factual observations have compelled me.
Defoliation when done right(read at the right time during flowering) does indeed work to increase yields dramatically!
This i do not say from hearsay but actual experimentation(yes with untreated controls) throughout the years.
All those who say that it cannot work because it is botanically impossible need to do some more actual on the field word instead of just parrotting Uncle Ben who is cleary wrong on this matter.

Uncle Ben, of course we all know that leaves' primary function is to capture light and co2 so this can be turned into sugars(carbohydrates). But guess what, the whole marihuana plant is made of carbohydrates(leaves, buds, stems...).
So your focus on buds is not shared by the plant. Your theory on fan leaves being the primary engines for bud production can therefor easiliy be debunked if it can be shown that the photosynthesis they produce is not (primarily) used for bud production. For me the proof of the pudding is in the eating. i.e. through extensive experimentation.

This was point number 1.

Number 2 concerns the efficiency in the photosynsthesis proces. Again your theory that fan leaves are the biggest leaves so they must have the biggest photosynthesis capability is a weak hypothesis. It can easily be rebuffed by suggesting that the ''sugar" leaves are far more efficient in transforming the capured light en co2 in what we all crave for i.e. buds. Again as with point no. 1 the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

My suggestion for Uncle ben is please stop being an ignorant grower and open your eyes and learn. And if you have any questions you can ask the in a rational way, because you are clearly mistaken when it comes to fan leaves and pruning.

kind regards.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 12, 2010)

....and now we have the trolls.


----------



## Fade (Oct 12, 2010)

This troll owns your bases, Uncle Ben !


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 13, 2010)

All you do is come in here with NOTHING of your own to add to this thread. Others like myself have given very definitive results and pictures to go along with them. You two are unreal with your science this science that with no proof of your own other then quoate from some old book.. If doing controlled side by side grows with not subtle but huge increases in yields means nothing then you guys are clearly blinded by your own arrogance. Stick to your books and dont try anything on your own. We all know that everything you read has to be true in every circumstance don't we ? LOL . Try to actually address many of the posts on this thread instead of just listening to each other . Who knows maybe you two will learn something new. Open your eyes the world isnt flat. What you feel so certain is fact isnt. Reality is this method can kick ass in terms of yield which was the whole point to begin with. I cant remember the last time I heard so much side stepping outside of politics.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 13, 2010)

Dively,

I respect your opinion on this matter. I have even practiced it on my current grow which has entered it's 4th week of 12/12 and I'm liking the results already. That being said, I kind of wish the personal tone you sometimes take with the older members that aren't willing to accept your ideas be toned down. You have made a good argument, showed pictures, results, yields, etc. In my mind, you won the debate hands down. Please don't gloat or get personal and ruin it.

Nice work and thanks for sharing your pruning methods. Those that question the practice can ask any horticulturist about pruning. It's done for the plant's benefit.


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 13, 2010)

Pruning screwed me this harvest on OG Kush bad..  I should have known better too because if anything ever happens my OG Kush strain takes at least 1 week to come out of shock, even in aero which is usually 1 day! I think I have some advice to offer, _never prune a really shocky strain during flower._


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 13, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Dively,
> 
> I respect your opinion on this matter. I have even practiced it on my current grow which has entered it's 4th week of 12/12 and I'm liking the results already. That being said, I kind of wish the personal tone you sometimes take with the older members that aren't willing to accept your ideas be toned down. You have made a good argument, showed pictures, results, yields, etc. In my mind, you won the debate hands down. Please don't gloat or get personal and ruin it.
> 
> Nice work and thanks for sharing your pruning methods. Those that question the practice can ask any horticulturist about pruning. It's done for the plant's benefit.


Sorry , it just gets sooo frustrating when they talk in circles and give no credit whatsoever to consistent results. That and be so condescending to others like myself like we have no clue yet somehow are yielding much more then themselves. They act like they invented the wheel and we are idiots for doing something else that works. The way they skirt the points being made it almost seems trollish.
Edited my last post, frustration got the better of me.... =(


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 16, 2010)

Serapis said:


> Those that question the practice can ask any horticulturist about pruning. It's done for the plant's benefit.


No it's not. That's like saying you would benefit if I removed your left leg or both of your nuts, the latter which I'm about to do. You need to learn what makes a plant tick and why commercial growers do what they do "when they do it".

Pruning is done for the benefit of the gardener, it's called "training". Most times it will set the plant back. For example, you should not prune any branches off a newly planted tree for about 2 years. After two years of leaving the trunk "trashy", then you can prune (train) it for a better shape - so you can mow under it, get a nicer profile, etc. A tree left "trashy" for a couple of years will have a larger girth, will be stronger, taller, and have a better root system than one that was pruned. Trust me on this one, I learned the hard way.

I remove leaves from the east side of my grapevines' fruiting zone but that's only for improving fruit/wine quality. A chemical change occurs within grapes or IOW words the "herbaceous" qualities are limited and more anthocyaninis are produced. I fully understand that if I remove too many leaves then it has negative effects of delaying crop ripening or in some cases not at all. It's all about The Balance. You prune internal branches of fruiting trees like apples or peaches but only to open up the canopy to air and light and drop the fruiting zone down for easier access by the picker. 

If your act of pruning _*induces*_ foliar output from dormant cannabis buds (those located in the axils of the petiole/trunk), then that's another issue. If indeed you induce foliar output or replacement, then you're OK except for the fact that you've lost some time. If you don't get new foliar output, then you WILL lose bud production compared to letting the plant grow naturally. 

UB


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 16, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> I need to learn what makes a plant tick and why commercial growers do what they do "when they do it".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well put UB =)


Not too many commercial growers grow under HID lights. In fact pretty much evreything you have quoted does not factor growing under HID lighting which is absolutely key here. The few advanced growers I know also remove leaves at week 3 f bloom. For shits and giggles I asked a guy that works at a nursery near me . He has a major in botany and actually manufactures his own line of tea that all the hydro shops use out here. He completely agrees with me that removing leaves under HID lighting with a SOG grow not only helps but is completely necessary unless your goal is to grow leaf. 

Open your eyes it will set you free.


----------



## loserface (Oct 16, 2010)

Maybe this is silly to ask:

I have one lady 17 days into flower. Her canopy is about 6-8" thick. Can I remove everything below that? I was going to try to take a few flowering clones as well. Its armageddon strain from fantaseeds. Ph 5.8 at 996ppm at the moment in a bb using lucas formula. 

Not tryin to jack, I swear just tryin to attain some info other could use as well.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 16, 2010)

loserface said:


> Maybe this is silly to ask:
> 
> I have one lady 17 days into flower. Her canopy is about 6-8" thick. Can I remove everything below that? I was going to try to take a few flowering clones as well. Its armageddon strain from fantaseeds. Ph 5.8 at 996ppm at the moment in a bb using lucas formula.
> 
> Not tryin to jack, I swear just tryin to attain some info other could use as well.


Yes you sure can. That is what Srcog and lollipop growers do.


----------



## cheddar1985 (Oct 16, 2010)

top thread done correctly and at 3 weeks into flower which was stated way back i forgot who posted it but is correct by cutting fan leaves and the popcorn at the bottom does increase yields dramaticly i found with certain strains.
i grow cheese uk cheese from clone and always grow 20 at a time i ve done it to death and cut fan leaves left them on numbrous times i ve done side by side experiments everything you can imagine to do with 1 strain and by removing the bottom third of the plant and nearly all fan leaves increases my yields by 600 grams before i tried doing it i averaged 70 oz but average 85 to 90 oz a time under 3x 600watt hps throughout my experimenting cutting them
happy growing 
ps those that dont like change leave em to it i say they will get left behind like the rest of em that are stuck in there ways and wont go no were far without trying to experiment and b4 any1 says it my sxxx is top draw believe you wont get a 0z for less than £200 and is gone in 1 hit happy days happy days


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 17, 2010)

The focus should be on photoysnthesis which drives cell division/elongation. The ONLY way to determine what material should be removed, if any, is to do a CO2 processing test or find out what the actual carbo production is on various plant parts using HID or outside lighting. Light is light, photons are photons. I have spoken to experts in the field of grape growing at Texas Tech who do have very expensive and sophisticated equipment that measures photosynthetic efficiency and such. Their "feelings" are not based on what they want or expect to see but rather on scientifically derived data.

Having said that the question is:

1. Is an old but large fan leaf still as productive at week 12 as it was when first mature?

My response - if it's green and healthy (no disease or insect damage), leave it alone. If the newer but much smaller leaves are in better health and CAN BE SHOWN SCIENTIFICALLY that they indeed collect more photons and have a higher CO2 processing rate than the older fan leaves, then it might be beneficial to yank fan leaves.

I'll err on the side of _natural_ as opposed to being drawn into forum opinion, theories, forum images, etc. My avatar shows a solid cola with solid lower bud development and ALL fan leaves were left intact. Thank God my plants can't read cannabis forums. 

I have seen folks recommend pulling fan leaves off but when it comes to the nut cutting they're covering up - they just don't have what it takes nor the ability to retain them. Folks will screw up their plants with stuff like Bloom foods, rocket fuels and such, induce fans leave necrosis from the stress, get some bud and exclaim, "see, removing fan leaves does work for me!"

The rule of thumb for me is "if it's green, it's producing." And yes, my goal is to grow leaf, lots of them.* If you guys would focus on leaf and root system production/maintenance and STOP worrying about bud production, you might get somewhere.* 

Think outside of the box, 
UB
.


----------



## sparkjumper (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm new here and certainly didnt real all the posts on this subject,I only have about 20 years more to live lol.One thing I can say from experience,getting direct light to the flowers can be detrimental to their development.And removing fan leaves so more light can pebetrate the flowers is akin to a double fuckup.You buds dont develop when they are saturated in light,they develop when the fan leaves are saturated in light.If you pull your fans and illuminate your flowers,you better do some real experiments like I did


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 17, 2010)

No one is saying leaves arent an important part of of growing MJ. There is no argument there. They are needed and are important just as light is. What you and a few others need to realize is that in an indoor grow under HID lighting that is stationary certain circumstances you may have to sacrifice one for the other to get maximum yields on your grow. You do this for the greater good of bud production. Five big plants under one light it wont make so much difference . 64 plants under one light and it becomes essential unless you really only want to grow leaf and settle for half the yield. Everyone grows differently and a huge yield isnt as important to some as others. You grow nice healthy plants and thats how you choose to grow. Others choose to grow to get the most final product they can for their given space. 

Its funny you say think outside the box UB when you are the one not willing to do so at all. I could fit about 12 or more colas just as large or larger as that one in the pictured same space with a SOG and removing the leaves and yield at least 2-3 times more in that space using these techniques. Don't think too many in here are interested in what grape growers say either but I could be wrong. Stop worrying about bud production ? If growing leaf as you stated above really is your goal then I guess you win and we can end the discussion . You are getting the leaf you want and I am getting the bud I want. Sounds like you just put the final nail in your coffin on this debate IMO =)


----------



## Brick Top (Oct 17, 2010)

It appears that some people do not understand what Uncle Ben says. The reason someone does not have to worry about bud production is if you grow your plants the way they evolved to grow, while providing them the best possible conditions/environment, the best bud production possible will be the result. It is sort of an 'if you build it, they will come' thing. If you plants the way they evolved to grow and give them the best possible growing conditions/environment the result will be the best bud production possible. 

While it is not the best analogy it might still make sense too some people. If you have a fast car and you want it to go faster and decide to reduce the weight so you have a better power to weight ratio it would not be beneficial to drain your gas tank to reduce the total weight. The car would weigh less but lacking fuel it will not only not be faster, it won't move at all. 

Most light that strikes leaves passes through to then strike lower leaves, and buds too. 85% of light that strikes a leaf passes through. Chlorophyll reflects green light rays, they do not pass through leaves. The human eye is most sensitive to the green light spectrum. With the green light spectrum filtered out the lower portions of plants appear to the human eye to be heavily shaded, that little light is penetrating to the lower portion of plants. But plants do not 'see' light the same way that the human eye does. The light that the human eye does not see still exists at lower levels of plants and it is those spectrum light rays that plants use, that they 'see,' that they need. People are fooled by what they see and what they do not see and they wrongly assume that plants only receive what they see with their eyes when looking at their plants.

If someone's plants are not receiving enough light to their lower portions the problem is inadequate lighting, not too many leaves, and the solution to inadequate lighting is not removing leaves that are very important, far more important than many believe them to be. The solution is to improve lighting. 

Many growers refuse to accept facts when the factual examples used are about plants other than cannabis plants. Due to cannabis being illegal there is not a great deal of research about normal common everyday plant functions performed on cannabis plants but no one should ever think that what applies to leaves found on grape vines or oak trees or tomato plants does not equally apply to cannabis plants. 

Cannabis plants do not exist outside the realm of botanical science. They are not totally unique plants with totally different functions just because they produce THC. 

A large percentage of growers, even many very good growers, mainly have beliefs that they rely on for growing but few know all that many proven facts to rely on for growing. Because cannabis plants are rough tough resilient plants that will take a lot of abuse and still grow well, many growers will believe what they do is the best way to do things. What they do not realize is if they did things correctly their results would be even better. 

Growers will experiment with different growing beliefs and one will seem to work better than another and because of that they will believe they found a better, or the best, way to grow. They think about their different attempts and the results of each and connect the wrong dots, they attribute their better results to the wrong things. They fail to see things that do not stand out when looking at plants and weighing a crop for being the true cause for lesser or better results in one, or some grows, and later they give credit for what can be better final results to things that are not the true reason. Then they tell other growers how it is done and say things like 'in my experience' or 'my experience has taught me' or 'when I tried this the results were better than when I tried that.' 

Far too often when someone says things like 'in my experience' or 'my experience has taught me' or 'when I tried this the results were better than when I tried that' they are perpetuating myths rather than sharing helpful facts because what they attribute their perceived success to was not actually due to what they believe it too be. When others read or hear 'in my experience' or 'my experience has taught me' or 'when I tried this the results were better than when I tried that' they assume that is factual proof for the belief being shared. 

Growers need to put less stock in mythical beliefs and instead accept proven facts for what they are, that being scientifically proven facts. No matter how many times someone repeats things like 'in my experience' or 'my experience has taught me' or 'when I tried this the results were better than when I tried that' it will never transform beliefs into scientifically proven facts and no matter how many times someone repeats things like 'in my experience' or 'my experience has taught me' or 'when I tried this the results were better than when I tried that' it will never transform scientifically proven facts into nothing more than beliefs or preferences. 

Facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs and never the twain shall meet.


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 17, 2010)

Sounds good on paper Brick Top but doesnt hold up in the real world of maximum yielding MJ plants indoors. So we should have more light then a 1000 watt HPS on a 4X4 tray ? That is redicules. Ony way you are getting light to the bottom of plants in a tight SOG like this is if you put lights on the tray pointing upwards which is silly. Why would I or anyone need more light when they can grow over 3 lbs a tray every 8 weeks on a single bulb ? 75% penetrates to the next leaves and then it has to go through more layers of leaves, by the time you get midway you have lost almost all your usable light not to mention the bottom. I have 100 gallon 10 foot tall pants outdoors and ALL the lower and inner branches have almost no bud on them at all. The two of you talk in circles with no proof or real world results to present anyone . 

I never said my experience, I stated facts about my grow. I state very clearly what the side by side controlled results were, same strains off the same mother, same size, same lighting, same air same nutes same everything. Same results EVERY single time. That is a controlled experiment. The two of you accept certain things to be facts that simply are not. You can not and will not yield as well with 64 plants per SQ foot if you dont remove leaves it is that simple. you also will have a VERY VERY hard time yielding as well as this type of grow even with SCROG methods. Consistent controlled results are results no matter how you may try to change this. The whole point of posting about this is to help people grow better no other reason at all. Trying to help fellow growers. You two just try to scare people away from tying new things when it appears you havent tried the very things you argue against. I have. I have grown every indoor method there is just about for five years and many more outdoors. You like many people read something and interpret it a certain way and accept it as fact under any and all circumstances hence limiting your abilities as a grower. Have the decency not to limit others with your somewhat short sighted beliefs. 

Also what other plants are grown to focus on a bud like MJ ? Not flowers but getting the biggest buds possible indoors under HID lighting in a tight space ? Anything ? Might explain it right there.


----------



## AbsoluteChron (Oct 17, 2010)

John Stevens said:


> I've done a few grows before and I'm currently on Day 30 Flower. I always leave every fan leaf the plant grows and tuck it underneath the canopy to ensure it doesnt cover the budsite as you can see in the picture.
> 
> In the second picture it shows someone whos on day 48 flowering, has took all the fan leaves off and its still going well (he is using cfls)
> 
> *When do you take fan leaves off and why do they do it?*


I think too many people forgot what this thread was about, so here it is again. You'll see this question is being posed SPECIFICALLY in regards to a photo of a trimmed plant being grown under a CFL. 



Brick Top said:


> Many growers refuse to accept facts when the factual examples used are about plants other than cannabis plants. Due to cannabis being illegal there is not a great deal of research about normal common everyday plant functions performed on cannabis plants but no one should ever think that what applies to leaves found on grape vines or oak trees or tomato plants does not equally apply to cannabis plants.


Being largely illegal and there being a lack available research is exactly why you have to be very vigilant in the things you treat as cardinal rules of growing. I believe that with enough precision in measuring all of the variables involved, there is essentially a sliding scale in the utility of any single variable in relation to all of the other variables. 


Being largely illegal wouldn't you also then concede that there is probably not much research funding for producing the most bud with CFLs like the original question is referring to? The intensity of the light available to those leaves is important because an unproductive leaf requires energy to maintain. Attempting to completely ignore the most limiting factor (LUX from the CFLs) in the specific example is in no way scientific.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Oct 18, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Its funny you say think outside the box UB when you are the one not willing to do so at all.


I've been growing all kinds of plant material for 40 + years and that includes cannabis back in the 70's. Trust me, I've about "done it all".



> Don't think too many in here are interested in what grape growers say either but I could be wrong.


Since when were you appointed the forum spokesman? This is the forum politicking and clique crap I was talking about. When it comes to cannabis forums, popular school of thought is usually pretty screwed up...creepy in fact.

The reason why I post about other plant material and their responses is to make a point about plant responses. If you don't get it, that's not my problem.



> Stop worrying about bud production ? If growing leaf as you stated above really is your goal then I guess you win and we can end the discussion .


Aint competing, just trying to teach you marijuana nerds something "different". 

You've fallen for the same old "high calyx to leaf ratio" cannabis hype posted by seed vendors. Damn straight don't worry about bud production. The frickin' leaves and the root system is what drives bud production, fool. Again, if you can't wrap your mind around that simple botanical concept, it aint my problem. 

UB


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Oct 18, 2010)

I'm going to do an LED grow and trim all the leaves just B4 flower.


----------



## Serapis (Oct 18, 2010)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> I'm going to do an LED grow and trim all the leaves just B4 flower.


ignorance must be bliss....


----------



## MeJuana (Oct 18, 2010)

Going to do a 2000w HPS grow over an 8 foot by 5 foot area, 1500PPM C02 and I will cross oceans to make sure I lose no leafs!!!

1) I lose no leaf the plant doesn't eject herself
2) Whatever I do I will not cut an OG plant in flower again, that was horrible.. Mustn't do that again!


----------



## dlively11 (Oct 18, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> I've been growing all kinds of plant material for 40 + years and that includes cannabis back in the 70's. Trust me, I've about "done it all".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL well this "fool" is outproducing you by a good margin utilizing high number SOG AND leaf removal. I "get" how to produce as much usable bud as possible in a given space apparently that is not enough for you master grower. If you cant wrap your mind around this simple fact it is your problem not mine. I am certainly not alone either. Almost every single 1.5+ gram per watt grower that isnt vertical is doing the same exact thing. I guess we are all "fools" for yielding so damn much instead of listening to old guys like you with your old school methods .... lol When you start yielding over a gram per watt chime in again champ. You are mostly just hurting yourself since most people reading and seeing with their own eyes can see exactly who is right on this topic. Deal with it =)


----------



## Secret Ladies (Dec 13, 2010)

I agree with you. Using fruit trees as the example. A farmer wanting bigger apples in his orchard prunes the flowers, not the leaves. Less flowering sites means bigger fruits as the energy produced has less areas to feed to put it simply. That's how people grow these crazy big pumpkins or any monster sized fruit. Same with our beloved plant. Leaves collect solar power and produce food. Flowers use that solar power to grow. Removing the fan leaves is completely non-productive. So if you want big buds you have to instruct the plant where you want those to be.


----------



## Canon (Dec 13, 2010)

Science is such a wonderful thing.
Gives answers to questions using information that is _believed_ to be correct at the time.
As new details are learned, science often changes their stands on topics.
Old truisms like the earth being flat,, earth being the center of the universe and such.

It's so easy to find your own answers on this foliage thing too.
Called "_cause & effect"._
Just take any one of your plants and find a couple of equally developed branches. Prune one and let the other go.
In the end, you'll see if it _seems_ to work for you the way you grow.
Now don't fall into the _pit_ and think if it worked once, it must be true.
Because all you really have at this point is, _an ongoing study._
_All my grows are ongoing studies!_ 
I like to think of it as finding a system / style that works best for me. (and I'll not say it's the best, only way, or perfect for all) 

For the record, everything I do on my grows would be considered wrong to someone(s). I grow, I harvest, ...and then I get high - works (LOL).


----------



## sparkjumper (Dec 13, 2010)

I havent read any replies just want to throw in what I've experienced.The best way to keep fan leaves viable for as long as possible during flower is to use N as the main nutrient the first 1-3 weeks depending on strain.Direct HID light on a flower,especially 1K horties have a tendency to dry out that flower depending on the distance of course.How many of you are like me and find the large "sattellite buds" surrounding the main cola about 8-10 inches below the top of the cola to be a hell of a lot more tasty and potent.My theory is its because they get shaded more than that main cola exposed to 12 hours of direct HID light,no matter the temps.I know my "satellite buds" kicks my cola's ass in taste and quality.Light directly on the flower isnt beneficial,the fans are constructed as to collect as much light as you can throw at it literally.I know sort of rambling lol.Short story direct light on fan leaves great direct light on flowers especially 50 day or so flowers,not so good


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 13, 2010)

Secret Ladies said:


> I agree with you. Using fruit trees as the example. A farmer wanting bigger apples in his orchard prunes the flowers, not the leaves. Less flowering sites means bigger fruits as the energy produced has less areas to feed to put it simply. That's how people grow these crazy big pumpkins or any monster sized fruit. Same with our beloved plant. Leaves collect solar power and produce food. Flowers use that solar power to grow. Removing the fan leaves is completely non-productive. So if you want big buds you have to instruct the plant where you want those to be.


Absolutely. I've noticed over the years that those recommending removing leaves are usually noobs who have never grown any kind of plant material before. All commercial fruit producers and to some extent most grape growers thin their crop to improve the quality of that which remains and to promote/preserve the health of the tree.

Where folks go wrong in ALL of the cannabis forums I've read is they focus primarily on the buds while ignoring the plant units that produce them. The hydro industry recognizes this fact, plays the consumer by pumping out rocket fuels and snake oils with catchy product names that contain buzzwords like Snow, Crystal, etc. Quite funny really.

The best way to keep fan leaves, all things considered, is not to abuse high P "bloom foods".

UB


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 13, 2010)

I take the leaves off when I harvest the plant.

The plant is perfectly capable of dropping any leaf it doesnt need and has been genetically engineered toward perfection through millions of years of evolution. Who am I to fuck with that?


----------



## mygirls (Dec 13, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> I take the leaves off when I harvest the plant.
> 
> The plant is perfectly capable of dropping any leaf it doesnt need and has been genetically engineered toward perfection through millions of years of evolution. Who am I to fuck with that?


tweeking and peeking for a better and bigger yields thats why..


----------



## 420God (Dec 13, 2010)

Topping, fimming, lollipopping, all proven methods of pruning to produce larger yields. 

Just don't cut off the leaves.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 13, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> I take the leaves off when I harvest the plant.
> 
> The plant is perfectly capable of dropping any leaf it doesnt need and has been genetically engineered toward perfection through millions of years of evolution. Who am I to fuck with that?


Agreed. I use a loupe to inspect most leaves as I'm harvesting. If they contain a good field of trichomes, they stay which is usually only the single leaf bud leaves. I use fine point hand pruners to remove all large fan leaves at harvest as I hang the colas to dry.

UB


----------



## mygirls (Dec 13, 2010)

420God said:


> Topping, fimming, lollipopping, all proven methods of pruning to produce larger yields.
> 
> Just don't cut off the leaves.


you can remove sum but not all of them


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 13, 2010)

Let's not get training mixed up with pruning the primary food generator of a plant. You can train without removing leaves. Pruning does not necessarily result in training a plant for the sole purpose of acheiving a new plant profile.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Dec 13, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Agreed. I use a loupe to inspect most leaves as I'm harvesting. If they contain a good field of trichomes, they stay which is usually only the single leaf bud leaves. I use fine point hand pruners to remove all large fan leaves at harvest as I hang the colas to dry.
> 
> UB


I use a cheap set of magnifying glasses set on a headband. I have magnifications up to 4x. But I find that 2x makes it really easy to trim the leaves on the first pass (I cut the big ones, let dry and then go back and trim them up pretty). The 2nd pass stuff ends up in a hash bag. With the 2x magnification it is easy to see where the trichs end on the leaves.


----------



## dlively11 (Dec 13, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Absolutely. I've noticed over the years that those recommending removing leaves are usually noobs who have never grown any kind of plant material before. All commercial fruit producers and to some extent most grape growers thin their crop to improve the quality of that which remains and to promote/preserve the health of the tree.
> 
> Where folks go wrong in ALL of the cannabis forums I've read is they focus primarily on the buds while ignoring the plant units that produce them. The hydro industry recognizes this fact, plays the consumer by pumping out rocket fuels and snake oils with catchy product names that contain buzzwords like Snow, Crystal, etc. Quite funny really.
> 
> ...


Yet you consistantly bash and ignore the experienced growers who are growing more bud per square feet then yourself utilizing these methods of leaf removal that defy all botanical facts/science. Its like listening to an old broken record sometimes. You and a few others choose to ignore FACTS. FACT is that removing the right leaves and the right time under certain types of grows will increase yields substantially. You have made it pretty clear you have never even grown a full SOG so clearly you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to leaf removal and this style of growing. I do as do others that have chimed in who remove leaves. The ones that do all have one thing in common, we have much higher then average yields. Mother nature didnt intend for us to cram 60 plants in a 16 square foot area. If you choose to grow in SOG, a proven high yielding stlye, you will need to start removing leaves unless you want to harvest mostly leaf. End of story. I have a 4X8 tray right now with 90 plants on it one week into bloom. It would be very obvious to anyone looking at it that you need to remove leaves in the next couple weeks or half the bud sites will bne totally covered by layers of leaves. 

I also find your last comment funny to. No doubt there is a bunch of BS marketing out there but a lot of these things works. "Snow Storm Ultra" fo instance works very vey well in increasing trichomes. Its dirt cheap and very concentrated too. As soon as I started running trays with it it was very obvious and the results speak for themself. Of course people like you will just dismiss the proven results and say it wasnt controlled enough for your standards to prove anything. Gravity also works amazingly well at make buds rock hard.

I know I am wasting my breath on some and certain old dogs cant be taught new tricks . I do think however that there are enough people out there not blinded by their own egos/arrogance to see through all the BS.


----------



## FootClan (Dec 13, 2010)

Spanishfly said:


> The leaves will drop on their own when they are ready.


Now that sounds like something i can jump on board with........good call


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 14, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> I know I am wasting my breath on some and certain old dogs cant be taught new tricks . I do think however that there are enough people out there not blinded by their own egos/arrogance to see through all the BS.


There are no "new" tricks....just recycled ones that come with every new crop of newbies.



> you will need to start removing leaves unless you want to harvest mostly leaf. End of story.


Thanks for the laugh.



> No doubt there is a bunch of BS marketing out there but a lot of these things works. "Snow Storm Ultra" fo instance works very vey well in increasing trichomes.


Ya think? And just how "very vey well" does it work? 

Nah sah.....it's the same old, predictable marketing bullshit:

_Snow Storm Ultra:_

_Emerald Triangle, the maker of Humboldt County's Own nutrients, has separated Snow Storm from the original Purple Maxx product and supercharged it to create Snow Storm Ultra. __Because of its high potassium level, Humboldt County's Own Snow Storm Ultra is ideal for increasing the essential oil levels in plants._
*When you want enhanced flower and fruit aroma and flavor, Snow Storm Ultra is a good choice.*

They separated it for the money. Why have one all-in-one product when you can bilk some fool by selling him 2 bottles of snake oil? The only thing that is now supercharged is the vendors pocket hehe. It's all a big lie...this crap is nothing more than overpriced, VERY watered down potassium hydroxide in solution. A whoppin' 0-0-3%, for ONLY $26.00/quart????? *You just bought yourself a quart of water for $26.00 LOL!* What little hydroxide it contains is gonna raise your pH too.... just what every hydro grower needs.  Also, the Humboldt tards wouldn't know the first thing about the negative affects of too much K on plant health (leaf retention), not that they care. Oops, there goes your N, Ca, and Mg! http://www.totalgro.com/concepts.htm Like all hydro vendors....they're only in it for the money.

Potassium is found in any decent plant food being one of the macros required by all plants. Sure as hell won't have any affect on the production of trichomes. Trichome production is genetically driven provided the grower has enough leaves to produce the required simple and complex carbos for flower/trichome development. Sad that most growers get their "knowledge" from snake oil salesmen. It's popular ya know. 

UB


----------



## mcpurple (Dec 14, 2010)

i cant beleive these pruning threads still get attention. it is simple. leave the leafs alone


----------



## findme (Dec 14, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> you will need to start removing leaves unless you want to harvest mostly leaf. End of story.


lol.. did he really just say this? I'm just gonna leave the rest alone because he is clearly a noob.

Here is what I do. I pinch my plants ( as it seems to create stronger stems) but... from now on ill be topping them also because uncle ben has given me an idea. After you top your plants, you can use the top by putting it into a cloner to find out the sex of the plant faster or if you already know the sex, you do whatever with it. make it a mother plant to make future clones,seed production,etc..

but back to how I handle my harvest. I harvest the buds that are ready and I leave the other buds on the plant until they are ready. I'm not one for harvesting the whole plant at one time because as we all know, you end up with popcorn buds or buds that aren't fully matured. so... I leave those buds on the plant for another week or two until they are matured and then cut them off thus, getting the most out of my plant.

I believe that this type of harvest is the best because it also follows the theme of the "fruit tree analogy". By cutting off the flowers of the matured bud, you end up allowing the smaller imature buds, to become bigger buds thus eliminating the popcorn buds. now.. I'm going to go vape for a little while  .


----------



## 1oldgoat (Dec 14, 2010)

AKRevo47 said:


> I cut my leaves a day or two, sometimes 3, right before harvest, especially when giving them extra darkness time. Helps with the trimming and rather than maintaing the leaves, any extra sugars will be moved into the bud.


I'm petty sure there won't be any extra sugar. How could there be with less foliage?


----------



## OZUT (Dec 14, 2010)

These just get better and better....

Exactly what extra sugars will go into the bud by removing the leaves 3 days before harvest?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 15, 2010)

Because something was posted on the internet and someone repeated.....it must be true lol.


----------



## ghb (Dec 15, 2010)

dead leaves can attract nasty things, sometimes they dont always fall off and just hang about in the middle of the canopy. i remove all dirty looking leaves in the hope that the plant will not waste any energy trying to repair them.


also i love snake oil.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 15, 2010)

dlively11 said:


> Yet you consistantly bash and ignore the experienced growers who are growing more bud per square feet then yourself utilizing these methods of leaf removal that defy all botanical facts/science. Its like listening to an old broken record sometimes. You and a few others choose to ignore FACTS. FACT is that removing the right leaves and the right time under certain types of grows will increase yields substantially. You have made it pretty clear you have never even grown a full SOG so clearly you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to leaf removal and this style of growing. I do as do others that have chimed in who remove leaves. The ones that do all have one thing in common, we have much higher then average yields. Mother nature didnt intend for us to cram 60 plants in a 16 square foot area. If you choose to grow in SOG, a proven high yielding stlye, you will need to start removing leaves unless you want to harvest mostly leaf. End of story. I have a 4X8 tray right now with 90 plants on it one week into bloom. It would be very obvious to anyone looking at it that you need to remove leaves in the next couple weeks or half the bud sites will bne totally covered by layers of leaves.
> 
> I also find your last comment funny to. No doubt there is a bunch of BS marketing out there but a lot of these things works. "Snow Storm Ultra" fo instance works very vey well in increasing trichomes. Its dirt cheap and very concentrated too. As soon as I started running trays with it it was very obvious and the results speak for themself. Of course people like you will just dismiss the proven results and say it wasnt controlled enough for your standards to prove anything. Gravity also works amazingly well at make buds rock hard.
> 
> I know I am wasting my breath on some and certain old dogs cant be taught new tricks . I do think however that there are enough people out there not blinded by their own egos/arrogance to see through all the BS.




I do not recommend removing ANY healthy or mostly healthy fan leaves during ANY phase of the plants growth.

Doing so only inhibits the plants growth. This is scientific fact... and NOT just an opinion.

Plants leaves use different types of chlorophyll, the two main types of chlorophyll are simply named A and B. They are used to process photo-active light along with the nutrients and fluid absorbed through the roots to produce cellular growth. No where else on the plant are the different types of chlorophyll required to complete this process present. They can only be found in the leaves. 

The chlorophyll inside the stalks and calyxs are merely the cellular building blocks. They can be considered the structural cells. These cells make up the majority of the plants structure but do little (basically nothing) to aid in energy production and cellular growth. These cells are the cells created by the different types of chlorophyll cells in the leaves and the nutrients absorbed through the roots.

The leaves can basically be considered factories for carbohydrate production and warehouses for storage of the carbohydrates for a plant. They process the light and create food for growth. No where else on the plant does this happen other than to a very minor and highly inefficient degree. If you remove the plants ability to carry out this process, in any amount, it will inhibit the plants growth. This can easily be proved by removing ALL of the leaves from the plant. The coinciding result of this is death.

The calyxs and stalks of the plant process photo-active light energy only in a very minor way, to a far less efficient degree. Only the leaves carry out that process in full and with total efficiency. So ensuring that the "buds" get more light does absolutely nothing. That's kind of like saying, if you rip off all the leaves on a Rose bush but leave the flowers on it, the flowers will get bigger because they get more light... It simply doesn't make sense and is technically biologically impossible. Cannabis is merely an annual flower. The calyxs (flowers, buds) require the leaves and roots to create the food for the cellular growth to take place. That is a scientifically proven fact that will never be proven to be incorrect by some little clown shoe simply observing their basement grow and thinking that something might or will work better than what thousands and thousands of years of evolution came up with.

Also, as a plant grows, the leaves and root system grow together in unison, they strive for a 50/50 ratio in mass between the above soil portion of the plant and the below soil portion of the plant. They support each other in a required methodology to continue growing. 

If you remove any amount of the leaves the plants growth will slow as it becomes aware that food production has become unbalanced. What happens is simple, it grows more leaves to compensate and catch up to the root system. This reaction however, halts all the other growth as the plant focuses it's energy to create more leaves so it can regain it's ability to sustain itself and resume normal growth. Obviously how severe this process affects the plants overall growth depends solely on how much leaf matter is removed.

Consider other functions of the leaf. Consider the importance of the stoma (pl. stomata) A stomata is a microscopic pore on the surface (epidermis) of land plants. It is surrounded by a pair of specialized epidermal cells called guard cells, which act as a turgor-driven valve that open and close the pores in response to given environmental conditions. *The presence of countless numbers of stomata is critical for plant function. *

Typically, the plant epidermis is tightly sealed by wax-coated, interlocking epidermal pavement cells, which protect the plant body from the dry atmosphere and UV-rays. *At the same time plants must be able to breathe, or exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen, for photosynthesis and respiration.*

*Stomata act as a gateway for efficient gas exchange and water movement from the roots through the vasculature to the atmosphere. Transpiration via stomata supplies water and minerals to the entire plant system.* When a plant encounters adverse environmental conditions, such as drought, a plant hormone called abscisic acid triggers stomata to shut tightly in order to prevent plants from dehydration and wilting.

*Remove fan leaves and you have cut off the efficient, exchange of gasses, which is vitally important to healthy plant growth and full plant production. *

I'm sorry but removing healthy leaves from plants just doesn't seem like a good idea when you look at the science of how a plant functions... Not to mention there is absolutely zero SCIENTIFIC evidence that removing leaves to expose "bud sites" to more light increases their size or weight. All the current scientific information suggests exactly the opposite... all their is on the other side of the argument is personal opinion and personal belief and neither come within light years of being scientifically proven fact, even though some here, like the one I am replying to claim it to be "fact."

When it comes to increasing the number of trichomes and the amount of resin they produce, keep your humidity low in flower and add UV-B lighting rather than waste your money on snake-oils that are mostly water. In nature, where these plants evolved, most strains with the highest number of trichomes per inch or centimeter or whatever unit if measurement you wish to use, and with the most resin per trichome head grow in areas of low humidity and high UV-B lighting. Both conditions are naturally harmful to plants of all types so through thousands and thousands of years of evolution plants developed ways to protect themselves from such conditions and what they do is precisely what we want them to do given our use of them. 

Do your best to create conditions, a growing environment, that will make plants grow that way, the way their genetic coding will cause them to grow the very best they possibly can, which is also the way we most want them to grow, and the results will be the very best the plants will ever be capable of achieving. 

Use their thousands and thousands of years of evolution and genetic coding to your advantage rather than attempt to fight it, to overcome it, to reverse it and to attempt to force plants to grow in a totally unnatural way that will only assure they will will never be capable of reaching their full potential.


----------



## OZUT (Dec 15, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> all their is on the other side of the argument is personal opinion and personal belief and neither come within light years of being scientifically proven fact, even though some here, like the one I am replying to claim it to be "fact."
> .


If you paid attention you would know that Dlively has proven science wrong over and over and over again in his garage where he grows 10 pounds per 4x4 tray every 30 days and is now working on cutting the flowering time in half by removing the entire root ball at 30 days into flower.


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 15, 2010)

OZUT said:


> If you paid attention you would know that Dlively has proven science wrong over and over and over again in his garage where he grows 10 pounds per 4x4 tray every 30 days and is now working on cutting the flowering time in half by removing the entire root ball at 30 days into flower.




Riiiiiight ..... so according to you a garage grow is the very same thing as true scientific horticultural experimentation performed under highly controlled conditions with multiple control groups using the highest technology equipment invented and performed by an actual horticulturist. Or maybe you are claiming that a garage grow is an even higher more scientifically and technologically advanced form of scientific horticultural experimentation than would be performed by actual horticulturalists under highly controlled conditions with multiple control groups using the highest technology equipment invented.


WOW! Thanks pal ... you taught me something I never knew before.


----------



## OZUT (Dec 15, 2010)

uhhhh, I'm not sure if you failed to see the sarcasm in my post or if I'm failing to see it in yours...


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 15, 2010)

OZUT said:


> uhhhh, I'm not sure if you failed to see the sarcasm in my post or if I'm failing to see it in yours...





> Originally Posted by *OZUT*  If you paid attention you would know that Dlively has proven science wrong over and over and over again in his garage where he grows 10 pounds per 4x4 tray every 30 days and is now working on cutting the flowering time in half by removing the entire root ball at 30 days into flower.



I apologize because I did totally miss the evidently intended sarcasm. Lately I have read some of the most inane things I have ever read about growing and I guess I have become conditioned to the point where when I see what appears to be more of the same I fail to see if it was intended as a joke and wrongly take it as just one more "Rain Man" trying to sound like Stephen Hawking.


----------



## 1oldgoat (Dec 15, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> *This can easily be proved by removing ALL of the leaves from the plant. The coinciding result of this is death.*


I heard that if you leave all the fan leafs on and remove all the rest you get better yield. Is this true?


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 15, 2010)

1oldgoat said:


> I heard that if you leave all the fan leafs on and remove all the rest you get better yield. Is this true?



Yep ... that is if you are growing for the largest yield of leaves only anyway.


----------



## Miles Joyner (Dec 15, 2010)

All I know is that on my current plant, a single one, the bottom bud sittes were pathetic.. like only a few pistils coming out in week 7 of flowering. I am lighting with only a cheap-o t8 bulb. I put it att he bottom of my planter, and 2 days later,t he lower bud sites have well over septupled in size (7 times) I would say that light ont he buds DOES hel, but I am only a newb.... Im just rporting what I saw with my own eyes. It could be a coincidence


----------



## 1oldgoat (Dec 15, 2010)

If a forum was a democracy, the nays would win hands down 47 against and 12 for removing leafs. So what has been proven here? Things aren't always what they seem to be? Just because it looks, sounds and walks like a duck...is it really a duck? How can we as a group, that after all, only want to know the best way possible to grow our plants and glean the information out of such a heated debate. As a noob at this game, to me leaving the leaves on makes way more sense than taking them off. 

On the other hand dlively11's technique seems to have some merit, although in "5 years of growing indoors only the last year have I stripped the leaves and coincidentally my yields are triple what they were a year ago. Strains I HAVE done controlled comparisons are , Blue Cheese, Super Skunk, Blue Dream, Casey Jones, Chronic White Widow, Cheese, Sweet Tooth, Chem Dog, and more.... Grown in the same room same lighting and the trimmed tray out yielded the untrimmed tray two fold." seems to me a bit of a stretch.

So is it just black and white here? What is the reason dlively11's yields are so high? Can you grow traditionally and get the same yields per sq ft? Curious minds want to know!


----------



## Serapis (Dec 15, 2010)

Some people are set in their ways and will never consider any method but their old tried and true as the right way. 


If it works for you, do it.... It can't get any simpler than that....


----------



## 1oldgoat (Dec 15, 2010)

Miles Joyner said:


> All I know is that on my current plant, a single one, the bottom bud sittes were pathetic.. like only a few pistils coming out in week 7 of flowering. I am lighting with only a cheap-o t8 bulb. I put it att he bottom of my planter, and 2 days later,t he lower bud sites have well over septupled in size (7 times) I would say that light ont he buds DOES hel, but I am only a newb.... Im just rporting what I saw with my own eyes. It could be a coincidence


Yes it helped, but because the light was able to shine on the leafs more at the bottom of the plant. That's different than cutting leafs off to get the light down there. Or am I wrong?


----------



## Brick Top (Dec 15, 2010)

Miles Joyner said:


> All I know is that on my current plant, a single one, the bottom bud sittes were pathetic.. like only a few pistils coming out in week 7 of flowering. I am lighting with only a cheap-o t8 bulb. I put it att he bottom of my planter, and 2 days later,t he lower bud sites have well over septupled in size (7 times) I would say that light ont he buds DOES hel, but I am only a newb.... Im just rporting what I saw with my own eyes. It could be a coincidence


Like so many you connected the wrong dots. The light on the lower leaves is what made the buds grow, not light on the lower buds themselves.

If you knew how plants actually work, how they function, you would not have said. "that light ont he buds DOES hel,"


----------



## Illumination (Dec 15, 2010)

stubbornstoner013 said:


> Common Sense huh?!?! Common sense could just as easily tell me that the plant is wasting its energy and nutrients to maintain the dying leaf rather than generating a lil extra energy w/ the lil bit of green its got left (if it has any). Green= active chlorophyll = energy. Yellow= dead chlorophyll=no energy=blocking light for green leaves below. Or is my common sense-orator broken again?!


do some research...leaves are also the AUXIN factories... if a yellow leaf won't come off easily it is because the plant is retaining it for its auxin production...if you study a lil simple botany you will know that plants don't drop leaves due to loss of energy production or photosynthesis...it drops it when it no longer produces auxins...and I believe a plant really needs auxins...you agree?

Namaste'


----------



## Uncle Ben (Dec 15, 2010)

OZUT said:


> If you paid attention you would know that Dlively has proven science wrong over and over and over again in his garage where he grows 10 pounds per 4x4 tray every 30 days and is now working on cutting the flowering time in half by removing the entire root ball at 30 days into flower.


That's cold.


----------



## wanabe (Dec 15, 2010)

i dont prune light kills thc leaves make food so i actualy cover the buds as much as i can


----------



## OZUT (Dec 15, 2010)

The man is an exceptionally talented farmer showing growers of the world the error of their ways...After all, he has been posting on MJ forums for a while now and is a self proclaimed expert


----------

