# Anybody Want To Double Their Yield?- Desertrat's Top and Prune?



## desertrat (May 11, 2010)

i cannot claim original ownership of this idea - it was in the old growfaq - but since i don't think anyone uses it anymore, i'm gonna jack it for myself. it won't double the yield of someone already using advanced growing techniques but it is an easy way to improve on basic growing techniques.

anyway, here are the basics
1. either top or fim the main branch after the 4th node
2. on the main branch *only*, prune every other fan leaf in a staircase pattern. this slows the growth of the main stem and for some reason stimulates the growth of secondary branches.

here's what you get after two weeks: 

versus this for topping alone: 

notice that each topped/pruned plant now has at least 6 growth tips all within a couple of inches of the canopy top. i think this is superior to multiple topping because it causes less overall stress to the plant and can be tailored to keep the growth tips all at the same height.

this is what a mature female looks like after topping/pruning: 

versus this for topping alone: 

i've tried it with two strains and gotten the same results. doubled yield to 4 ounces per plant from 2 ounces.


----------



## riddleme (May 11, 2010)

Can you explain this stairstepping thing a bit better?

can't tell how your prunning from the pic's

It looks and sounds similar to something I was going to try in my next grow though there was no prunning involved


----------



## desertrat (May 11, 2010)

the stair step pattern simply means to start at the bottom node of the main branch, cut one fan leaf of the pair, then go up to the next node(where fan leaves are at 90 degree angle to the fan leaves in first node), cut one fan leaf, then at the third node you cut the leaf opposite the leaf cut from the first node, then on the fourth node you cut the leaf opposite the second node cut leaf. continue to the top. what you have left is a spiral pattern of fan leaves making their way up the main branch. you end up cutting exactly half of the main branch fan leaves.


----------



## makinthemagic (May 11, 2010)

i kind of did this by accident with some nute/ph issues. nodes that lost fan leaves have much more developed secondary branches.


----------



## desertrat (May 11, 2010)

makinthemagic said:


> i kind of did this by accident with some nute/ph issues. nodes that lost fan leaves have much more developed secondary branches.


 that's kind of interesting, same thing going on with the pruning, obviously. so maybe it's more like the plant tries to repair the wound site by flooding it with nutrients and the secondary branches are the beneficiaries?


----------



## greenjacketdude (May 11, 2010)

desert YOU ARE RIGHT ON my friend!


----------



## B2K (May 12, 2010)

I did this kind of by accident my first grow, just topped it and pruned a bunch of leaves, and it worked real. Just about every top was level with the rest and all the stems were about the same thickness I was impressed.


----------



## i.NeeD.A.LiGhTeR (May 12, 2010)

what kinda wattage you using?


----------



## Schotzky (May 12, 2010)

damn desertrat your picture is scary
i did this once on my first noob grow and trimmed off too much by accident and slowed it down, be careful not to do this lol. beginners mistake

and when did you top them? shortly after they reached their 4th node?


----------



## desertrat (May 12, 2010)

i.NeeD.A.LiGhTeR said:


> what kinda wattage you using?


 600 watt mh for veg room and 600 watt hps in flowering room plus four 42 watt and four 26 watt cfl's of each spectrum that i throw in from time to time.



Schotzky said:


> damn desertrat your picture is scary
> i did this once on my first noob grow and trimmed off too much by accident and slowed it down, be careful not to do this lol. beginners mistake
> 
> and when did you top them? shortly after they reached their 4th node?


 i was scared to death the first time i tried it but it was easy. if i remember correctly, i topped at the sixth node.


----------



## desertrat (May 17, 2010)

here's what the female plants look like now: 

the middle plant and the one on the right have been topped and pruned, the plant on the left only topped

and here are the plants that were in veg when topped and pruned:View attachment 941105 the plant in the middle of the back row and the plant on the right of the front row and been topped and pruned. the others have been topped only.


----------



## illtoxic (May 17, 2010)

When you say you cut the fan leaves. Do you just trim the leaf it self on the fingers of leaf? or do you infact snip off the entire leaf?

Thanks!


----------



## cylee89 (May 17, 2010)

From your experience do you think this would work on 12/12 from seed/clone grows?


----------



## desertrat (May 18, 2010)

illtoxic said:


> When you say you cut the fan leaves. Do you just trim the leaf it self on the fingers of leaf? or do you infact snip off the entire leaf?
> 
> Thanks!


 the leaf plus the stem that holds the leaf



cylee89 said:


> From your experience do you think this would work on 12/12 from seed/clone grows?


 the first three plants are 12/12 from seed.


----------



## DjAeroFluxxx (May 18, 2010)

how many weeks into veg. do you top and prune? I do mine around 5 or 6 weeks into veg.


----------



## desertrat (May 18, 2010)

DjAeroFluxxx said:


> how many weeks into veg. do you top and prune? I do mine around 5 or 6 weeks into veg.


 i top and prune soon after the 4 th node. this set i did at the sixth node. that's about 3 weeks or so from seed.


----------



## Koi2Dragon (May 18, 2010)

Awesome info.
I will be using this method for my 5 gallon buckets.
How long after topping/pruning do you give them to recover until you flower them?


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 19, 2010)

ya man, this info is pretty awesome. good to see pictures to go along with it. +rep.


----------



## crazeehaze (May 19, 2010)

nice post.

i just came out of the growroom now and ive done a "staircase" prune as you call it on 2 of my 10 plants that has allready been FIM'ed. 
will be very interesting to see the difference


----------



## Hotwired (May 19, 2010)

Good for seed growers but not so sure about clones.

Since the clones already grow in a staircase pattern I don't think it would work. Unless the offset nodes were very close to each other.


----------



## desertrat (May 19, 2010)

Koi2Dragon said:


> Awesome info.
> I will be using this method for my 5 gallon buckets.
> How long after topping/pruning do you give them to recover until you flower them?


 hey koi, post your results here and we can get a good set of results across different grow environments. i don't usually care so much about recovery time. i top any time after the fourth node up until the pistils start forming in flowering.



Dr. Greenhorn said:


> ya man, this info is pretty awesome. good to see pictures to go along with it. +rep.


 thanks



crazeehaze said:


> nice post.
> 
> i just came out of the growroom now and ive done a "staircase" prune as you call it on 2 of my 10 plants that has allready been FIM'ed.
> will be very interesting to see the difference


 post some pics when you can tell the difference



Hotwired said:


> Good for seed growers but not so sure about clones.
> 
> Since the clones already grow in a staircase pattern I don't think it would work. Unless the offset nodes were very close to each other.


 the only reason you care about the staircase pattern is to keep the plant symmetrical. for a clone, i still cut every other main branch fan leaf.


----------



## researchkitty (May 19, 2010)

I dont see who this will "double" your yield. Helpful, sure, but this isnt some wonder-save-all-superman idea. Twice the lighting will double your yield, but nothing else in the known world will double a yield.


----------



## Schotzky (May 19, 2010)

researchkitty said:


> I dont see who this will "double" your yield. Helpful, sure, but this isnt some wonder-save-all-superman idea. Twice the lighting will double your yield, but nothing else in the known world will double a yield.


twice the light wont double the yield. if your outdoors the sun is more powerful than any amount of lights you put on a plant and outdoors doesnt double the yield. however outdoor plants they are bigger, inpart because they arent constricted to a certain area not because of the sun.


----------



## Nitegazer (May 19, 2010)

I just have been LSTing my girls, and a couple nights ago decided to trim some leaves that were taking light away from the new branches. It may not be a stair-step pattern, but seems to make sense for where my plants are at right now. 

Here are pictures of them at 28 and 33 days from germinating. The branching is really taking off.


 


I think the potential of additional light on the new branches can guide the selection of what to prune, too.

My appologies for the stray thumnail...


----------



## King'G' (May 20, 2010)

Newb here, just curious about the biology of the alteration of the plant... because you're essentially making more main colas and increasing weight, would it in effect lower the potency of the bud? Do you have to use more nutrients over the life of the plant versus if you let it grow without topping at all?


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 20, 2010)

researchkitty said:


> I dont see who this will "double" your yield. Helpful, sure, but this isnt some wonder-save-all-superman idea. Twice the lighting will double your yield, but nothing else in the known world will double a yield.


1. It won't. Any time you remove a productive fan leaf you lower yields.

2. More lighting does not guarantee more yield. It could mean less if you over saturated your plant and have reduced levels of chlorophyll.

Simple botany folks.....


----------



## desertrat (May 20, 2010)

> It won't. Any time you remove a productive fan leaf you lower yields.


 agreed that any time you remove a productive fan leaf you are going to retard growth, especially locally, but that does not in all cases lead to lower yield. gardeners of all kinds of plants use selective pruning to enhance the growth of their plants, no reason weed would be any different. in this particular form of pruning the increase in yield you get from secondary branches outweighs the lost yield from the primary cola. this is past being a theory, look at the results.


----------



## cowboylogic (May 20, 2010)

Hotwired said:


> Good for seed growers but not so sure about clones.
> 
> Since the clones already grow in a staircase pattern I don't think it would work. Unless the offset nodes were very close to each other.


Good point. Your a thinker. And Rat, sweet thread. Great info with pics. Perfect!


----------



## cowboylogic (May 20, 2010)

desertrat said:


> agreed that any time you remove a productive fan leaf you are going to retard growth, especially locally, but that does not in all cases lead to lower yield. gardeners of all kinds of plants use selective pruning to enhance the growth of their plants, no reason weed would be any different. in this particular form of pruning the increase in yield you get from secondary branches outweighs the lost yield from the primary cola. this is past being a theory, look at the results.


Agreed Rat. Ben is getting pretty good at playing the 'simple botany' card.


----------



## desertrat (May 20, 2010)

cowboylogic said:


> Agreed Rat. Ben is getting pretty good at playing the 'simple botany' card.


 thanks. thing is, i think he's right in 99% of suggestions here to prune. had this same discussion with fdd over a year ago. one mind at a time...


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 20, 2010)

desertrat said:


> agreed that any time you remove a productive fan leaf you are going to retard growth, especially locally, but that does not in all cases lead to lower yield.


IN ALL CASES, the more fan leaves you remove, the lower the yield. You need to forgo the forum hype and social order with what makes a plant tick.



> gardeners of all kinds of plants use selective pruning to enhance the growth of their plants, no reason weed would be any different.


I do that with peaches and grapes, only to open up the canopy to more light, air, etc. See my avatar, that plant was crammed in with others such that your typical woe-is-me-no-light-is-getting-down-there didn't fit the bill.



> in this particular form of pruning the increase in yield you get from secondary branches outweighs the lost yield from the primary cola. this is past being a theory, look at the results.


I get my yield from where I can get it, which is based on the fact that fan leaves produce it.

What you're doing here is trying to get hits, interest. Mention any buzzwords in a thread like "double your yields with this new fandangled method" and the kids will come running.

UB


----------



## desertrat (May 20, 2010)

> IN ALL CASES, the more fan leaves you remove, the lower the yield. You need to forgo the forum hype and social order with what makes a plant tick. What you're doing here is trying to get hits, interest.


 psychological projection is such an interesting phenomenon, don't you think? check my posts, i spend all my time helping nubes who have no idea about the rating system. at one out of ten even knowing the system and one point per i'm really going to be somebody in 2047 or something. i have a really healthy ego fed by my life in the real world, in here i'm just trying to share knowledge. if you took the time to look at this thread you'd know: 1 - i could care less about credit, i found this in the old growfaq, 2 - i had a remarkably similar chat with fdd 18 months ago, and 3 - went back and duplicated the results. again. 

so, what am i supposed to do? you point to your botany knowledge and i point to pictures. what are you saying? that i did something other than what i'm claiming? how about opening your mind a little and asking yourself just how did what you see in front of you happen, not deny that what you see is real. then we'd be having a real discussion.


----------



## cowboylogic (May 20, 2010)

desertrat said:


> thanks. thing is, i think he's right in 99% of suggestions here to prune. had this same discussion with fdd over a year ago. one mind at a time...


Agreed again. Ben knows how to grow things. But even more important he knows why. Just seems he is unwilling at times to think outside of his own box.


----------



## desertrat (May 20, 2010)

researchkitty said:


> I dont see who this will "double" your yield. Helpful, sure, but this isnt some wonder-save-all-superman idea. Twice the lighting will double your yield, but nothing else in the known world will double a yield.


 here's the problem with your theory - it's a theory. on the other hand i have five plants of two strains that did double the yield by simply cutting 7 or 8 fan leaves. i'm an r & d engineer and know just a little about how to run an experiment, so i'm pretty confident in the results. and not like i doubled it from 10 grams to 20, either.



King'G' said:


> Newb here, just curious about the biology of the alteration of the plant... because you're essentially making more main colas and increasing weight, would it in effect lower the potency of the bud? Do you have to use more nutrients over the life of the plant versus if you let it grow without topping at all?


mmm..not a botanist...my limited experience says the potency was the same.



cowboylogic said:


> Agreed again. Ben knows how to grow things. But even more important he knows why. Just seems he is unwilling at times to think outside of his own box.


 what i learned about botany was in the tenth grade, so i'm not even saying it's a comparison. but i do know how to run a good experiment and i know when i see non-random events.


----------



## cowboylogic (May 20, 2010)

Yep, Pics, comparisons and guidelines. Solid thread.


----------



## Koi2Dragon (May 20, 2010)

desertrat said:


> hey koi, post your results here and we can get a good set of results across different grow environments. i don't usually care so much about recovery time. i top any time after the fourth node up until the pistils start forming in flowering.


 Hey rat
I will post pics when they get bigger.
BTW how did you come up with this method?
Do you know any websites or posts with more pics or info on it?


----------



## desertrat (May 21, 2010)

Koi2Dragon said:


> BTW how did you come up with this method?
> Do you know any websites or posts with more pics or info on it?


 there used to be a growfaq on this site, put together by members, that described the technique under the heading pruning. rumors are the mods are re-working the section and will add it back. probably without this technique, given the anti-pruning bias here.


----------



## veggiegardener (May 21, 2010)

cowboylogic said:


> Agreed again. Ben knows how to grow things. But even more important he knows why. Just seems he is unwilling at times to think outside of his own box.


I'm 100% behind Ben on this one.

Topping or pruning will increase the canopy width, but those techniques are inferior to LST or Supercropping to achieve maximum yields.

I'd like to see some side by side comparisons. Not for me, but for those in need of a demonstration.

I won't do it, because I don't want to lose the yield.


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 21, 2010)

> the stair step pattern simply means to start at the bottom node of the main branch, cut one fan leaf of the pair, then go up to the next node(where fan leaves are at 90 degree angle to the fan leaves in first node), cut one fan leaf, then at the third node you cut the leaf opposite the leaf cut from the first node, then on the fourth node you cut the leaf opposite the second node cut leaf. continue to the top. what you have left is a spiral pattern of fan leaves making their way up the main branch*. you end up cutting exactly half of the main branch fan leaves.*


Sorry, but there is NO botanical rhyme or reason to the above regarding the premise that it somehow increases yield.

1. Also, there is no stress involved in topping or pruning, only a reduction in the very unit that produces all plant tissue - leaves, roots, flowers, etc. This is nothing more than one of a dozen or so forum gimmicks I've seen over my 12 years of posting to pot sites. Having said that, when plant material is removed during its growth stage, the plant usually replaces it. In this case you'll get foliar output from the axis of the petiole nodes. Moot point now, eh?

2. If you've topped above the 4th node, then there is no "main branch" left. Ya just done removed it Willis. A "main branch" aka "trunk" is a dominant, SINGLE, terminal leader.

Based on the postulation that cutting off a few fan leaves increases yield, then cut them all off. Less is more, right?

UB


----------



## Nitegazer (May 21, 2010)

Sheesh,

The anti-pruning contingent are a hostile bunch.

Desertrat, thanks for writing this thread, and putting up with the abuse in a mellow way. 

I, for one, appreciate the information you put together. Since I grow in a pair of small cabinets, my veg cycle can be as long as I want (the flowering cab is occupied for 10-12 weeks each cycle). So, even if trimming some leaves in the early stages of growth slows things down a bit, it doesn't really matter, because I have all the time I need to recover. In the mean time, the branching sets up very well for the SCROG.

I find the terms 'always' and 'never' generally out of place for growers. There are a lot of different growing setups, and every decision is a trade-off.


----------



## desertrat (May 21, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Based on the postulation that cutting off a few fan leaves increases yield, then cut them all off. Less is more, right?
> 
> UB


do i really need to explain to an adult that there are limits to a good thing? perhaps you should save sophomoric arguments for sophomores. you need to bump up your game an additional half decade's worth of advanced education and two decades of scientific experience if you want to have a debate with me. so, tell me again, why are my eyes lying to me and i'm not getting twice the yield i actually think i am? oh, that's right, it's because you say it's impossible. works for me. not.


----------



## desertrat (May 21, 2010)

Nitegazer said:


> Sheesh,
> 
> The anti-pruning contingent are a hostile bunch.
> 
> ...


 as you can see from the post i made at the same time, my patience is directly related to my state of medication and i am going without right now.


----------



## desertrat (May 21, 2010)

> Sorry, but there is NO botanical rhyme or reason to the above regarding the premise that it somehow increases yield.


 you *say* so and i *show* different. keep ignoring the evidence, shows your open mind.



> 1. Also, there is no stress involved in topping or pruning, only a reduction in the very unit that produces all plant tissue - leaves, roots, flowers, etc. This is nothing more than one of a dozen or so forum gimmicks I've seen over my 12 years of posting to pot sites. Having said that, when plant material is removed during its growth stage, the plant usually replaces it. In this case you'll get foliar output from the axis of the petiole nodes. Moot point now, eh?


 but you don't get leaf output, you get extra growth from the 2 growth tips at that node. l o o k at the p i c t u r e s. you have to have some explanation for what i show or you have absolutely no credibility in answering this question. saying something is impossible when faced with photographic evidence is not very compelling, is it?



> 2. If you've topped above the 4th node, then there is no "main branch" left. Ya just done removed it Willis. A "main branch" aka "trunk" is a dominant, SINGLE, terminal leader.


 very big sigh. the main branch is the part below the node that's topped. i top at the sixth node so i trim 5 main branch fan leaves. is this so hard to understand??


----------



## Waiakeauka (May 21, 2010)

I think that Desertrat pictures holds more water then UB theory. UB is a great contributor to the forum but sometimes you have to realize that not all new techniques are bad and that some actually work. Thanks desertrat!


----------



## desertrat (May 21, 2010)

Waiakeauka said:


> I think that Desertrat pictures holds more water then UB theory. UB is a great contributor to the forum but sometimes you have to realize that not all new techniques are bad and that some actually work. Thanks desertrat!


 you're welcome, unpronounceable hawaiian person


----------



## YungMoolaBaby (May 21, 2010)

"2. on the main branch *only*, prune every other fan leaf in a staircase pattern. this slows the growth of the main stem and for some reason stimulates the growth of secondary branches."

This makes perfect sense to me. That's not botany, that's pure logic. If you cut off the light absorbing leaves off one branch, then that branches growth will be slowed, and while the other branches, with more foliage absorb more light and get the energy that the fan leaves on the main branch would of gotten (but they are gone so more to the secondary growth). Mad run on sentence but it makes sense.


----------



## BlackFinger (May 21, 2010)

Whew, tension tension... I have an open minded opinion on these theories 

1) Pictures are only as honest as the people taking them (Did you lollipop or use any other tech.?) Not saying your dishonest just stating how paranoid I am. 

2) Can't really argue with science... On the same note I love selective pruning. Not for an increase in yield so much as letting enough light through so the plant reaches maturity evenly.

3) Great thread none the less and props on taking the time to do a controlled experiment for us to see.

4) The only way I know how to increase yield is from optimal conditions CO2 and plenty of (Cu) for the assistance in carb. metabolism etc. etc. and (Si) which with inadequate amounts will cause an approx. 50% decrease in yield it usually exists in the form of Silic Acid and is absorbed in this way. oh and of course P and K are always big in the yield department  but nature life everything is about balance and moderation. Veg time there are alot of factors people X X my mind is going crazy thinking about everything that effects yield so its not as simple as a magic technique in my opinion.

My 2 cents!

Again great thread i will +rep ya in a bit I am a lazy stoner but you have my word +rep is coming


----------



## desertrat (May 21, 2010)

> Pictures are only as honest as the people taking them (Did you lollipop or use any other tech.?) Not saying your dishonest just stating how paranoid I am.


 let's play this out. i make up a technique that doesn't work and post it here. a couple of people try it and it obviously fails. now why exactly am i motivated to do such a thing? two months from now people would be kicking the metaphorical shit out of me. and i will have gained....what exactly? all i've done is try something new, describe it, and show the results. and for this i get such grief. not from you, but you get the point.


----------



## BlackFinger (May 21, 2010)

I hear ya man. I did not mean any disrespect just stating how my mind operates. Some people will do anything to be right, I can see your not like that; hence the props and rep. That comment was more for the sake of putting the question out there so people think and research what they hear and see. Rather than follow blindly .


----------



## ...... (May 21, 2010)

thanks,im gonna try this on one plant and if the results are good I'll make it a mandaory thing when I grow.


----------



## cowboylogic (May 21, 2010)

Started a journal for the sole purpose of doing a side by side grow/comparison. And have a cool little plant to work with. Heres a link: https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/332796-top-not-too-top.html


----------



## stowandgrow (May 21, 2010)

Thanks for the info, desertrat! I will be trying this technique on my next run.

I think it's a bit foolish to take the "I know all there is to know" stance with anything. No matter how well versed we are on something, there is always more to be learned. I'm a bit of a newbie with marijuana cultivation (in comparison to some of you folks), so I am, and will continue to absorb all of the various tips, techniques, and experiences and apply those to my grow. Some may work great with certain strains, and others won't ................... but what will I have lost by trying something new? Absolutely nothing!

Thanks again! +rep


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 21, 2010)

This is fair production, which could be increased by not pulling the very unit that produces bud.

If you noobs want to feel you've reinvented the botanical wheel, then suck up to your buds, and go for it.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (May 21, 2010)

desertrat said:


> do i really need to explain to an adult that there are limits to a good thing?


Yeah, explain. This is a cause and effect thingie. 



> perhaps you should save sophomoric arguments for sophomores.


No, I'll indulge sophomoric premises that have no value in the real world of horticulture.

Let's regress back to the Freshman level shall we since most here have never grown a tomato, radish, or pepper....much less pot. What is the plant unit that produces flowers?

UB


----------



## desertrat (May 21, 2010)

i'll be quite content to let the people here do their own comparisons and make their own judgements. no more point for me to this thread until a couple of months have passed. it'll be kinda fun to see how this all turns out. the drama! the subtle linguistic digs! the testosterone! 

just saying, i'd rather share a vape.

anyone want to follow up with me feel free to pm


----------



## Hotwired (May 21, 2010)

I think Pedobear should have a say in this


----------



## veggiegardener (May 22, 2010)

Hostile?

The hardest part about helping noobs is their inability to differentiate between the advice of a rookie, and someone with three decades of experience.

Bad information abounds in Cannabis culture.

We're hoping to convey accurate information.

Experimenting is fun, but don't try to sell old wives tales as the straight info.

They rarely are, at least regarding pot.


----------



## cannofbliss (May 22, 2010)

quote from Uncle Ben "No, I'll indulge sophomoric premises that have no value in the real world of horticulture.

Let's regress back to the Freshman level shall we........ What is the plant unit that produces flowers"?

UB 


ooo....oooo...ooo know this one hmmmmm....... lemme guess... the stem/branches? HAHAHA LOL


----------



## cannofbliss (May 22, 2010)

nahh.... but seriously if you cut off the fan leaves and branch that its on, (as in cutting it all the way up to the main stem)(even selective pruning like half of the fans), then you are reducing the amount of spaces in which pistils (soon to be buds) can form, kinda like cutting off your balls before you reach puberty. (couldent think of some exact reference to what you would do to girls haha LOL) maybe....ummm...yeah.... nevermind thats nasty hahaha lol

ANYWAYS..... Hey, well whatever works for you do it, and if you seriously notice and end up with more weight with that technique then by all means go for it


----------



## stowandgrow (May 22, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> This is fair production, which could be increased by not pulling the very unit that produces bud.
> 
> If you noobs want to feel you've reinvented the botanical wheel, then suck up to your buds, and go for it.
> 
> UB


Uncle Ben:

I have little doubt (based upon your posts that I've read) that you are extremely well versed in marijuana cultivation. I have made it a point to read through any posts of yours on here since joining the forum. Your 40+ years of experience is a wealth of useful information for someone like me, and I appreciate your contributions to the forum.

Having said that, I can't understand why you are so quick to discount other peoples practical experiences with their own garden?? Perhaps a poor analogy, but I played hockey my entire life, including the NHL. I came across an array of different personalities in both coaches and players ....... most of whom had dedicated their entire lives to the sport that they loved, and many of whom felt that their approach to the game was the best one. What I found though was the people who were not as rigid, and were able to check their ego, were the ones that continued to grow and evovle in the sport, and ultimately ended up at the top of the heap.

I'll get off my soap box now.


----------



## passthatsh!t23 (May 22, 2010)

I have toppd my plant and took off the 2 top fan leaves right under the toppd area so that the lower bud spots take off with the new growths. Here she is after a couple of days and is at day 10 of flowering. 

any advice to do with it?


----------



## desertrat (May 22, 2010)

passthatsh!t23 said:


> took off the 2 top fan leaves right under the toppd area


 personally, i wouldn't cut off both fan leaves at a single node unless i had no use for the growth tips there - like if you were going to pull them for clones. even then?? i completely agree with UB that cutting a leaf retards growth in that area. i don't prune to "uncover" growth tips, i prune to slow down the growth of the main stem.


----------



## passthatsh!t23 (May 22, 2010)

desertrat said:


> personally, i wouldn't cut off both fan leaves at a single node unless i had no use for the growth tips there - like if you were going to pull them for clones. even then?? i completely agree with UB that cutting a leaf retards growth in that area. i don't prune to "uncover" growth tips, i prune to slow down the growth of the main stem.


I only took off those leaves becuz i had a light fall and land on it and burnd like the new growth and the 2 leafs. i forgot to say that earlier.
So will i have any problems in the future. but as you can see she recoverd quite nicely.


----------



## desertrat (May 22, 2010)

passthatsh!t23 said:


> So will i have any problems in the future. but as you can see she recoverd quite nicely.


 no problems other than a little slower growth


----------



## passthatsh!t23 (May 22, 2010)

desertrat said:


> no problems other than a little slower growth


ight w0rd.
i am gonna update my light system what would you perfer. 150 hps or 250 hps?


----------



## desertrat (May 22, 2010)

depends on how much you want to yield. the 150 watt light has about 16,000 lumens and the 250 has about 28,000 lumens. you want about 14,000 lumens per average-sized plant.


----------



## passthatsh!t23 (May 22, 2010)

i was just checking out prices for a 250 watt hps and found that a 400 watt hps is cheaper to buy then the 250 watt one. I was wondering why that is or is it just the prices.

Could i just go and buy the bulb and through it in a regualR SOCKET.?


----------



## desertrat (May 23, 2010)

passthatsh!t23 said:


> i was just checking out prices for a 250 watt hps and found that a 400 watt hps is cheaper to buy then the 250 watt one. I was wondering why that is or is it just the prices.
> 
> Could i just go and buy the bulb and through it in a regualR SOCKET.?


 nope. hps bulbs have a special socket and require a ballast to work.


----------



## passthatsh!t23 (May 23, 2010)

awe man.


----------



## ICantBelieveItsNotBud (May 25, 2010)

Haha i did this by accident! I topped a seedling and i accidentally burnt the 2 top leaves, so i snipped them. Not only did the 2 top stems branch out, but since i cut 2 fan leafs off, 2 more branches sprouted out from the bottom. It is really cool it is like a 4" tall cheap looking Christmas tree  lol. Some of the leaves that are branching out look weird though, not like a traditional fan leaf, but anyways i now have a little 4" shrub lol it looks funny


----------



## JUST GROW IT (May 27, 2010)

I'm a newbe and found this thread real informational. I thank you for all your input
Keep it up Bro


----------



## jolly8541 (May 29, 2010)

This post is everything right and everything WRONG all at once....Desertrat, dude you seem to be a really sharp dude, very interesting post and something definately worth trying. The pic of that plant was sic. It sucks that you've dug up a nugget of knowledge, used it, got positive results, and shared them. Only to have other members post here, not with questions, but intentions of stirring up shiznit. 

Further, to those of you who are in a position to do so...The passing on of your knowledge and experience should be done so without calling the rest of us under 50k posts noobs or dumbasses or whatever. I think that part of what we do here is about bringing people together with common interests, sharing knowledge, and doing so in a way thats different from the "keeping of with the Jones" crowd of superficial, chest thumping, I'm caught up with social status plicks everybody wants to double tap.

yes, I said Plicks the way directors in the west say asians do....


----------



## Hotwired (May 30, 2010)

I tried this method and they all dieded


----------



## Jut (May 30, 2010)

oooo i didnt know it would double your yeild thanks for the info desert rat im looking fowrad to trying this on my new super lemon haze ill upload pics once it grows a bit but check out my dutch passion man do u recon its a bit to late to top  ? peace


----------



## BuddaRoom (May 30, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> This is fair production, which could be increased by not pulling the very unit that produces bud.
> 
> If you noobs want to feel you've reinvented the botanical wheel, then suck up to your buds, and go for it.
> 
> UB


lmao what th fuck u using 1980's nutes aswell uncle ben ?!? I pull better with a 400w lol.
You needs 2b admitting that your just a 80's lover and ya stuck there ??! 
Desert this actually works, cant explain why , dont care , but it does. Fuck ub.


----------



## desertrat (May 30, 2010)

JUST GROW IT said:


> I'm a newbe and found this thread real informational. I thank you for all your input
> Keep it up Bro


 you're welcome



jolly8541 said:


> It sucks that you've dug up a nugget of knowledge, used it, got positive results, and shared them. Only to have other members post here, not with questions, but intentions of stirring up shiznit.


 still expecting to get the last laugh in about 6 weeks.



Hotwired said:


> I tried this method and they all dieded


 you had to have done something else. no way cutting off five or six fan leaves and topping/fimming will kill a plant. post the details of your grow and some pics and i or someone else can help.



Jut said:


> oooo i didnt know it would double your yeild thanks for the info desert rat im looking fowrad to trying this on my new super lemon haze ill upload pics once it grows a bit but check out my dutch passion man do u recon its a bit to late to top  ? peace


 where? pics?



BuddaRoom said:


> Desert this actually works, cant explain why , dont care , but it does. Fuck ub.


yes, it does work. 

new pic:

the two plants at the top of the pic have been topped and fimmed. the plant on the lower left has been fimmed only. those three are the same mystery seed-descendant genetics and you can see the multiple growth tips compared to the simply fimmed plant. as an aside, looks like i fimmed the fim and ended up with only one growth tip instead of at least two.

the fourth plant in the lower right corner is a fimmed only carmelicious. the other plants i was growing for comparison turned out to be males.


----------



## Hotwired (May 30, 2010)

desertrat said:


> you had to have done something else. no way cutting off five or six fan leaves and topping/fimming will kill a plant. post the details of your grow and some pics and i or someone else can help.


I was j/k bro. I only do clones so my leaves are already in an offset pattern. If I took 'em off I wouldn't have any left


----------



## Nitegazer (May 31, 2010)

desertrat said:


> the two plants at the top of the pic have been topped and fimmed. the plant on the lower left has been fimmed only. those three are the same mystery seed-descendant genetics and you can see the multiple growth tips compared to the simply fimmed plant. as an aside, looks like i fimmed the fim and ended up with only one growth tip instead of at least two.
> 
> the fourth plant in the lower right corner is a fimmed only carmelicious. the other plants i was growing for comparison turned out to be males.


I have to say that I never really have understood Fimming. Lots of folks swear by it, but there seems to be less botanical theory regarding the technique than 'leaf removal'. I don't understand how Fimming would be different for the plant than regular topping. I plan on running some experiments with the techniqe in a few generations of my grow-- but that won't be for at least 6 months.


----------



## abefroman35 (May 31, 2010)

desertrat said:


> that's kind of interesting, same thing going on with the pruning, obviously. so maybe it's more like the plant tries to repair the wound site by flooding it with nutrients and the secondary branches are the beneficiaries?


desertrat THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! i JUST learned about Topping a few minutes ago, and now i have this staircase method of pruning to help it even better!!! thank you so much brother!

i am doing a scrog from birth, and need a better way to branch my baby girls -- and thanks to you, i have found EXACTLY what im going to do!!! second node topping, and staircase fanning!!!


----------



## abefroman35 (May 31, 2010)

desertrat said:


> the leaf plus the stem that holds the leaf





desertrat said:


> i top and prune soon after the 4 th node. this set i did at the sixth node. that's about 3 weeks or so from seed.



awesome brother, you just keep answering my questions left and right!!! thanks.


----------



## abefroman35 (May 31, 2010)

desertrat said:


> psychological projection is such an interesting phenomenon
> 
> so, what am i supposed to do? you point to your botany knowledge and i point to pictures. what are you saying? that i did something other than what i'm claiming? how about opening your mind a little and asking yourself just how did what you see in front of you happen, not deny that what you see is real. then we'd be having a real discussion.


haha quite a phenomenon indeed.

haha i must admit, that even though Uncle Ben is right, you can not deny truth in front of you. like you said, "i point to pictures."

perhaps it does "lower" yield in some cases -- but i would hope to believe that in most... ahhh what the hell do i know.


----------



## abefroman35 (May 31, 2010)

desertrat said:


> do i really need to explain to an adult that there are limits to a good thing? perhaps you should save sophomoric arguments for sophomores. you need to bump up your game an additional half decade's worth of advanced education and two decades of scientific experience if you want to have a debate with me. so, tell me again, why are my eyes lying to me and i'm not getting twice the yield i actually think i am? *oh, that's right, it's because you say it's impossible. works for me. not.*


haha you kill me desertrat -- haha i love this argument.


----------



## abefroman35 (May 31, 2010)

Waiakeauka said:


> I think that Desertrat pictures holds more water then UB theory. UB is a great contributor to the forum but sometimes you have to realize that not all new techniques are bad and that some actually work. Thanks desertrat!


yes sir. great point waiakeauka.

its not that uncle ben is not right, just that there comes a time and place to re-write these man-made laws and theories that so many follow rigidly, and to redevelop the techniques according to the occurring experiences and knowledge that HAS been founded upon the old techniques and theories.

the highest cannot stand without the lowest.


----------



## abefroman35 (May 31, 2010)

Hotwired said:


> I tried this method and they all dieded



DAMNNN! really!? what happened??? how quick did they die? did you prune them correctly as desertrat instructed??? this is REALLY interesting now!!!


----------



## abefroman35 (May 31, 2010)

Hotwired said:


> I was j/k bro. I only do clones so my leaves are already in an offset pattern. If I took 'em off I wouldn't have any left



haha you soma bitch!!! haha i believed you too. haha well thank Christ you were lying! hahaha.


hahahaha and i love your signature! hahaha!


----------



## plebean (Jun 1, 2010)

stow,
yes poor analogy. plants' basic botany hasn't changed in millions of years. a game of hockey changes by the second, so yes, many different approaches are totally valid and necessary to succeed. it's great that people are innovating and trying different things. it's helpful and encouraged, but it must be understood within a scientific framework. we are talking about science>biology>botany>horticulture>cultivation of soft wood annuals>cannabis cultivation. forums are complicated because they're part show & tell, part advice column, and a tiny bit of applicable REAL scientific data. a bit of criticism is necessary to balance the perspective for the uninitiated. we owe it to them to present our findings in a well thought out and conclusive manner. don't take it personally. we're just trying to increase the credibility of using forums by providing REAL scientific data.

don't confuse effects _in spite_ of circumstances with effects _because_ of circumstances.
by the way, what NHL team did you play for?


----------



## desertrat (Jun 1, 2010)

> don't confuse effects in spite of circumstances with effects because of circumstances.


this is exactly why you repeat experiments and encourage others to try to duplicate your results as well. a consistently repeatable result is because of circumstances while a single instance could be the result of anything. so far, i've personally seen this technique work twice, and hope to have more evidence within a couple of months.


----------



## stowandgrow (Jun 1, 2010)

plebean said:


> stow,
> yes poor analogy. plants' basic botany hasn't changed in millions of years. a game of hockey changes by the second, so yes, many different approaches are totally valid and necessary to succeed. it's great that people are innovating and trying different things. it's helpful and encouraged, but it must be understood within a scientific framework. we are talking about science>biology>botany>horticulture>cultivation of soft wood annuals>cannabis cultivation. forums are complicated because they're part show & tell, part advice column, and a tiny bit of applicable REAL scientific data. a bit of criticism is necessary to balance the perspective for the uninitiated. we owe it to them to present our findings in a well thought out and conclusive manner. don't take it personally. we're just trying to increase the credibility of using forums by providing REAL scientific data.
> 
> don't confuse effects _in spite_ of circumstances with effects _because_ of circumstances.
> by the way, what NHL team did you play for?


I'm not saying one method is correct, and the other is wrong. I was simply pointing out that UB discounted someone elses experiences off hand by playing the "basic botany" card. It's fine to disagree with someone, but please do so in a way that does not come off in such an egotistical dick-swinging manner. I would venture to say, like everything else in life, that the art of marijuana cultivation is an ever evolving science. There are methods that are used today, that will be obsolete in 20 years as our understanding of the plant evolves.

This forum seems to be part knowledge, and part ego stroking for some.


----------



## Hotwired (Jun 1, 2010)

abefroman35 said:


> haha you soma bitch!!! haha i believed you too. haha well thank Christ you were lying! hahaha.
> 
> 
> hahahaha and i love your signature! hahaha!


hehe thanks


----------



## BuddaRoom (Jun 2, 2010)

stowandgrow said:


> I'm not saying one method is correct, and the other is wrong. I was simply pointing out that UB discounted someone elses experiences off hand by playing the "basic botany" card. It's fine to disagree with someone, but please do so in a way that does not come off in such an egotistical dick-swinging manner. I would venture to say, like everything else in life, that the art of marijuana cultivation is an ever evolving science. There are methods that are used today, that will be obsolete in 20 years as our understanding of the plant evolves.
> 
> This forum seems to be part knowledge, and part ego stroking for some.


You can clearly tell them boots are too big for that monkey .


----------



## Ol' Scrumpy (Jun 2, 2010)

Looks like a classic case of education blinding the eyes that are attached to a bright mind. One time they lectured in universities about the world being flat, now we have photos that prove otherwise, but I suppose someone still argues that it is... IMHO, sometimes we need to stop and look around to make sense of the world, and stop basing everything we think upon the information we were spoon fed by some over priced, over crowded classroom.
Heres an idea: If you're so sure this method doesn't work, why don't you try it and debunk the method? THAT is how "simple science" works.

All I know is I saw a picture with 14 donkey dicks on it...FOURTEEN. Even the lower small buds were growing like colas. I would be crazy to not try this.


----------



## Dragon Gem (Jun 2, 2010)

sticky this?


----------



## ganjaluvr (Jun 2, 2010)

illtoxic said:


> When you say you cut the fan leaves. Do you just trim the leaf it self on the fingers of leaf? or do you infact snip off the entire leaf?
> 
> Thanks!


The whole leaf bro.. the whole thing. In a staircase pattern.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jun 2, 2010)

stowandgrow said:


> I'm not saying one method is correct, and the other is wrong. I was simply pointing out that UB discounted someone elses experiences off hand by playing the "basic botany" card. It's fine to disagree with someone, but please do so in a way that does not come off in such an egotistical dick-swinging manner. I would venture to say, like everything else in life, that the art of marijuana cultivation is an ever evolving science. There are methods that are used today, that will be obsolete in 20 years as our understanding of the plant evolves.
> 
> This forum seems to be part knowledge, and part ego stroking for some.


Sorry, ya can't argue with botany no matter how hard you try.


----------



## YungMoolaBaby (Jun 2, 2010)

OK! Here's the thing. UncleBen and DesertRat are arguing the same thing. Uncle Ben says botany, desertrat provides pictures. DESERTRAT SAID, "...*prune every other fan leaf in a staircase pattern. this slows the growth of the main stem and for some reason stimulates the growth of secondary branches." 

*That is botany UB. If you trim the fan leaves of the main stem, then the light and energy will go to the leaves that are left on the plant, aka the SECONDARY BRANCHING. That is simple botany. I understand the more foliage, the more light being absorbed, but if you cut off the source of light absorption off of one main stem, then the light/energy will go to the other parts of the plant, because there is more foliage there to absorb the light. Because there are now more spaces for light to penetrate. So you guys are all arguing the same thing. It will make colas like that because of simple botany.


----------



## YungMoolaBaby (Jun 3, 2010)

There is a thread on ICMAG about this. They call it defoliation. https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=174163


----------



## stowandgrow (Jun 3, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Sorry, ya can't argue with botany no matter how hard you try.


OK, so answer me this: I've read through "Uncle Bens topping technique to get 2 or 4 main colas", so how does that differ from a botany standpoint in comparison to what desertrat is doing? I've read on here you saying that mother nature put the leaves there for a reason, so why mess with it ........................... did mother nature intend on you whacking your plant in half??

Your way of manipulating the plant seems to work for you, so why are you so certain that other methods (that you've never tried) won't be equally as succesful?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jun 3, 2010)

"Defoliation, high yield technique"? Stupid is as stupid does. Leave it to some newbie stoner to pluck the very unit that produces bud and try to glamorize such stupidity in a thread. And as expected, folks fall for the gimmick because someone said it works as the thread swells to 100 pages, hah! 

Regarding my technique, it's done while the plant is very young as a training technique, not as a butchering technique for IC Mag noobs that can't find their grow butts with both hands.

I mean...come on people, look at this poor excuse for bonafide culture. These gardens look like crap. https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=174163&page=19

peenchay peenchay,
UB


----------



## whiteflour (Jun 4, 2010)

I have to agree with UB here. There's a lot of thing that influence growth, and a lot of things that inhibit. I like new school growing as well, but I'm not going to try can debate the fact MJ has been grown for longer than I've been alive While topping and pruning techniques do have their place, its most only beneficial in an indoor environment, and I'm almost positive if you compared the results side by side it wouldn't be that much difference. Plants are somewhat limited in their capability, and even if you managed a technique to "encourage" more growth, it would require more nutrients to be possible. So in essence it's not quite doubling the yield, but upping the possibility.

Now, that doesn't mean the technique isn't beneficial, especially indoor. Under a limited or unidirectional light source (unlike the sun that moves) an even canopy means more than having "more" foilage. Who's really to say that all of that foilage is getting hit by light, thus undergoing intense photosynthesis, that would impact growth.... compared to limited photosynthesis which is good for sustainability. No different than seedling with no leaves and slow growth, or an LST or SCROG with crazy growth. 

I do honestly see desertrats method as having substantial weight and reason. Am I willing to try it? No, Not quite yet. Mainly because I believe while it works it would come at a sacrifice of veg time. Is that wrong? Absolutely not. It's just not the way I'm used to, or like to grow.


----------



## riddleme (Jun 4, 2010)

Well as most folks might know I am one of the members that yells the loudest about not triming leaves

But I also love a good experiment, so I am going to do this to a plant in my next grow, I wish I could say it would be a side by side but alas I intend to do different things to each plant as I will be experimenting with 3 different techniques

will be awhile but I will report back once it starts


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jun 4, 2010)

There is a difference between pruning to achieve training results and excessive removal of the unit that produces your bud. "Exposed budsites" are not capable of increasing yield, the photosynthetic tissue mass just isn't there. Many times when leaves or branches are removed the plant responds with replacement. Depends on timing and location.

There is a reason why fan leaves have a large surface and why they extend out from the plant into the surrounding atmosphere. It has been a natural plant evolution resulting in the most efficient method of collecting photons for the plant's photosynthetic processes. Up to a point of light saturation (bleaching out of the chlorophyll), the more photons collected by the plant, the more plant material (tissue) it is capable of producing.

Since the discussing of leaf removal in its various forms is as old as the hills and repeats itself with every new crop of noobs, I'll post a series of discussions from different now defunct cannabis forums, posted years ago.

As posted at CW->
*
>Is it a good idea to remove fan leaves that block light to the lower branches or will this take energy away from the flowering?
>

Uncle Ben:
Rottytown and Joey gave a solid explanation that is botanically based. Leaves are the lifeblood of the plant... with a caveat - they have to be functional and productive. If those leaves are healthy and green and receiving good decent light, "leave" 'em alone. If they are yellow or prone to fungus attack, they can be safely removed without detriment to the plant's health as they are contributing little if any value regarding food production - and this is The Key. If they are quite low on the plant and not receiving much light, then mother nature has a way of first taking the goodies from the leaf and it's petiole (removing stored food reserves/metabolites) and dropping the leaves anyway - moot point, eh?

>Even though I've tied the branches down horizontally, many branches are now shaded by large fan leaves.
>

Don't worry about shading branches, worry about shading leaves. Lower branches will always be shaded if your main light source is overhead. Add side lighting or use highly efficient side reflecting panels to alleviate this situation to a degree.

BTW, notice how large fan leaves are? Ever wondered why? It's because they are the most efficient food producing unit for the plant. It's your call (while understanding their function) regarding what to do with them at any given point in time.

>The lights have been on 12/12 for about 3 weeks and the plants are flowering if this helps.
>

I grow the most amount of foliage going into 12/12 as possible. While folks are doing the 15-30-15 thingie, I'm providing plenty of N to support foliage production. In general, lot's of foliage=lot's of flowers. Once sexed and the stretch is over, then you need to back off the N and increase the P and K with a blend like Peter's Blossom Booster, an excellent blend from an old pro who I hit on once in a while. Call Jack up, he's a great resource - http://www.jrpeters.com/moreblooms.html 

Bottom line? It is your call to determine what is most important to the plant during flowering - large, efficient fan leaves or small, ineffective bud leaves. Choose carefully regarding targeting fan leaves for removal or tucking them away, as their exposure to quality light is The Key.

Good luck,
Uncle Ben



As posted at cann.com->

Thunderbunny:

In his book "marijuana botany" Robert Connell Clarke states that:

 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 noninductive 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. Premature 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

He goes on to say 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

Good Luck,
Thunderbunny *


----------



## sixstring2112 (Jun 4, 2010)

This is how i handle pot plants and i believe it helps increase Yeild.I think it is somewhere between desertrat and UB. the plant is master kush and i topped it at the second node(ub) then i let it get big enough to take cuttings and took them twice. once at 6 weeks and again at 8 weeks. every time i took a cutting i also took the matching branch from the other side of the plant, when i was done with that weeks cuttings i just reshaped the plant by balancing it out top to bottom.In that process i removed Whole branches and some indepentant fan leaves. Also , if i see a fan that is off color or out of place maybe blocking a new branch or budsite i whack it.I think this might be the happy medium between desert -- kinda hacked looking plant in the first post and Ubs take on never cutting fans.It's just another way of doing things that works on lots of plants, we used to do this to burning bush in the spring to help make them fatter.


----------



## ultraviolet pirate (Jun 4, 2010)

nice plants bro!


----------



## Nitegazer (Jun 4, 2010)

UB,

First off, let me say that I very much respect you, and know that I am certainly a noob compared to you. I also like your anti-hype attitude. This hobby (?) is prone to all sorts of myths and fantasies; your perspective cuts through all that.

I would like to know if you would support limited leaf removal in certain circumstances. I can agree that removing a leaf reduces the sugars produced in the plant, and slows growth-- but sometimes isn't that slowed growth just what is desired? What if the slowed vertical growth is accompanied by a drive in the plant to produce more leaf sites, aka branching. Could leaf removal be a cousin of topping, which also removes leaf matter and 'injures' the plant?

BTW, have you read the OG FAQ on leaf removal, and do you support that as a concensus document?

Thank you ahead of time for your input and time.


----------



## desertrat (Jun 4, 2010)

i'll keep it simple: results in 7 weeks.


----------



## Nitegazer (Jun 4, 2010)

desertrat said:


> i'll keep it simple: results in 7 weeks.


I'm doing it now, though I can't say if it's the strain or the technique that is leading to mad branching on my Blue Cheese-- I don't usually work with indica. I plan on working a variety of techniques (FIM, Supercrop, LST, and de-leafing) for a comparison on a future grow. First, I need to get to know the strain better and establish a baseline.

I am excited to try it out with my G13/Haze-- anything that can bring sativas under control in a small scrog is worth trying for me.


----------



## Hotwired (Jun 4, 2010)

Fellas fellas please

We need to relax with the testosterone and concentrate on things that are purely more ethical.......and much more invigorating to look at.

Such as a plum. A plum is a round fruit that likes to be eaten very gently. A plum can often be mistaken to take the place of a woman's bottom.

For example:



After studying this picture for many hours I have come to the conclusion that YES, a plum may actually exist that takes the place of a woman's bottom.

It is therefore quite conceivable that you may also be able to nibble this fruit very carefully without damaging the fresh juicy innards.

Please post your point of views on this matter and refrain from any arguments. This seems like a special moment in time so let's not ruin it


----------



## sixstring2112 (Jun 4, 2010)

I am not trying to stir the pot here, and i think desertrats pic#4 looks sweet. I just think there are alot of different ways to grow, dif strains, dif growers, dif growing methods, i just dont think it is so cut and dry with maryjane.nice plums hotwired, gunna go study that pic for awhile


----------



## YungMoolaBaby (Jun 4, 2010)

Check this out:

Before


After


This is a pic of defoliation from a user named lifeless on icmag. Now, this is a fact when I say the after pic shows that the light will DEFINITELY penetrate deeper into the plant because there is less shading in the canopy. that is a fact.


----------



## medicalmary (Jun 5, 2010)

> This is a pic of defoliation from a user named lifeless on icmag. Now, this is a fact when I say the after pic shows that the light will DEFINITELY penetrate deeper into the plant because there is less shading in the canopy. that is a fact.


It seems like those plants were butchered several weeks into flowering. In my opinion, it will lead to less yield. What you do in the vegetative state to shape your plants may or may not be good for growth, but telling noob growers to cut this far into flowering is irresponsible misinformation.

Also, more penetration deeper into the chasm of the plant is not necessarily a good thing. Those top fan leaves were receiving more light than the newly exposed ones, because they were much closer to the source. Now the plant needs to regrow fan leaves. Thus using more resources that could have been used for flower production.

mm


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jun 6, 2010)

Nitegazer said:


> I would like to know if you would support limited leaf removal in certain circumstances.


Don't mean to come across as combative, but I've got to ask, what is the problem with leaving a healthy leaf on the plant? Do you have a disease pressure problem? Look at my avatar, I retain most leaves by harvest with plants crammed into indoor gardens. When a leaf is no longer functional the plant will drop it via a CO2 processing flag.



> I can agree that removing a leaf reduces the sugars produced in the plant, and slows growth-- but sometimes isn't that slowed growth just what is desired? What if the slowed vertical growth is accompanied by a drive in the plant to produce more leaf sites, aka branching. Could leaf removal be a cousin of topping, which also removes leaf matter and 'injures' the plant?


Topping is a training technique. It also removes flowering sites, is done early, and usually results in more leaf output via branching.

I let a plant grow at its own pace, neither trying to rush it or slow it down.



> BTW, have you read the OG FAQ on leaf removal, and do you support that as a concensus document?
> 
> Thank you ahead of time for your input and time.


Haven't read the FAQ.

Good luck,
UB


----------



## desertrat (Jun 19, 2010)

well, enough boring talk of theoretical botany and back to the point of my thread. that would be yield, right?. so, i don't have the final, final answer in yet, but i do have the initial final answer - that is to say i chopped the first of three, 12/12 lowryder/mystery today. this one had been fimmed and fan leaves pruned as described in the thread. the final two include another fimmed/pruned plant and a fimmed-only plant. visual comparison of the plants give me the expectation that the fimmed/pruned plants will produce at least 1/3 greater yield. anyone who's interested in the progress of the plants can check out my journal.

i don't own a scale for legal reasons so we'll have to settle for visual comparison, here's the first lowryder (note the bud shears for scale):



for the record, i chopped at 2/3 cloudy trichs even though plant was clearly not done to make up for the severe deficit in stockpiles post smoking relatives' visit. obviously, i'm giving up a little yield but a guy's gotta have his priorities straight.


----------



## riddleme (Jun 19, 2010)

technique aside, those buds look scrumptous! can't wait to see the comparrison harvest


----------



## desertrat (Jun 19, 2010)

riddleme said:


> technique aside, those buds look scrumptous! can't wait to see the comparrison harvest


 thanks alot. that's ALL the plant, by the way, every single branch that was above ground is in the pic.


----------



## Spukoo4U (Jun 19, 2010)

desertrat said:


> that's ALL the plant, by the way, every single branch that was above ground is in the pic.


Thats good to know got some lowryder 2 growing myself.... great thread and argument guys!


----------



## welshsmoker (Jun 20, 2010)

have 2 cheese plants 7 weeks old 12/12 from seed, 1 i have virtually raped off all the fan leaves the other has not been touched, will post pics later for you to compare, make up your own minds but the photos dont lie....


----------



## welshsmoker (Jun 20, 2010)

sorry the photos are shite, but bolloxed bet you can tell which was raped though,,,


----------



## desertrat (Jun 20, 2010)

not sure what you're trying to prove by how you pruned. i wouldn't have pruned that way. what results do you expect?


----------



## plaguedog (Jun 22, 2010)

To the Hockey guy in this thread. GO HAWKS!

Been way to long since they won.

And nice post desertrat. I never really prune anything on my plants that doesn't need it. To each their own. I might give it a shot next time to slow down the main shoots, just for experimentation factor. When I top, usually two of the main shoots are a bit taller then the others, I guess this is one way of slowing them down to keep them at the same height. 

Both you and UB are great growers with a lot of knowledge. You guys need to burn one together. lol


----------



## bjeminyro (Jun 23, 2010)

desertrat said:


> the stair step pattern simply means to start at the bottom node of the main branch, cut one fan leaf of the pair, then go up to the next node(where fan leaves are at 90 degree angle to the fan leaves in first node), cut one fan leaf, then at the third node you cut the leaf opposite the leaf cut from the first node, then on the fourth node you cut the leaf opposite the second node cut leaf. continue to the top. what you have left is a spiral pattern of fan leaves making their way up the main branch. you end up cutting exactly half of the main branch fan leaves.


Have you attempted to use this technique outdoors? Does it have the same effect? I'm planning on trying this out on at least one of my babes...


----------



## stowandgrow (Jun 23, 2010)

plaguedog said:


> To the Hockey guy in this thread. GO HAWKS!
> 
> Been way to long since they won.
> 
> ...


HAHA! I was glad to see Chicago win as well. I'm a bit of a hockey purest, so I'm always happy when an original six team wins it all.


----------



## desertrat (Jun 23, 2010)

honestly, i don't know if it would help outdoors in most situations. the main benefit of doing this pruning is it creates lots of growth tips all within the same distance of the light, increasing the efficiency of the light a lot. the sun's intensity is almost the same whether 1 foot off the ground or ten feet, so it doesn't do any good if a couple of growth tips are a little closer to the sun. 

this method does seem to boost the growth of side branches without regard to how much light they're getting - side branches appear to get more nutrients than they were getting before pruning, so this would apply to outdoors. worth doing one plant to see the effect.


----------



## lordj (Jun 24, 2010)

Hey, UB and Desertrat,

Is there a list of pot strains that are good for topping and NOT good for topping? I hear Blueberry should be topped but wanted to get your thoughts.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## desertrat (Jun 24, 2010)

ub's the expert on topping, you might want to post in his topping stickie or pm him.


----------



## desertrat (Jun 30, 2010)

just an update on the two lowryders' progress. they are both fattening up nicely and still seem to have a couple of weeks to go, but for consumption reasons i don't know if i'm going that long.

plant that was topped only:



plant that was topped and pruned(the greener growth in the top right is a different plant):



want to bet against a much higher yield from topping/pruning?


----------



## ColaFarmer (Jun 30, 2010)

Can't argue with the technique, the proof is in the pictures. I'm going to give this a try next time for sure. Thank you!


----------



## tj.shulman (Jul 1, 2010)

Very interesting desertrat. I gave this a go with one of my 3 week old lowryder2 x AK47 plants, it will be interesting to see what the difference is. I hear that even topping alone isn`t recommended for dwarf autos but it`s worth a go.

Do I continue to snip the fan leaves from the main stalk as they grow? 
I don`t touch the leaves on the secondary stalks right?


----------



## desertrat (Jul 1, 2010)

> hear that even topping alone isn`t recommended for dwarf autos but it`s worth a go.


 it was a seed bank mystery seed, if I had known it was a lowryder I would have chosen something else - instead of adding new growth tips it made one really huge cola with multiple heads - a real mutant but it happened on both topped and pruned plants.



> do I continue to snip the fan leaves from the main stalk as they grow?
> I don`t touch the leaves on the secondary stalks right?


 no, you only cut the one time. And yes, just the main stalk. Four or five leaves is all we're talking about.


----------



## tj.shulman (Jul 1, 2010)

desertrat said:


> it was a seed bank mystery seed, if I had known it was a lowryder I would have chosen something else - instead of adding new growth tips it made one really huge cola with multiple heads - a real mutant but it happened on both topped and pruned plants.
> 
> no, you only cut the one time. And yes, just the main stalk. Four or five leaves is all we're talking about.


Good good!
So the 4 leaves I have cut + the top is all that I need to do you reckon?
No more even as the plant grows?


----------



## YungMoolaBaby (Jul 1, 2010)

*REMEMBER THIS?*


YungMoolaBaby said:


> Check this out:
> 
> Before
> 
> ...


*HERE IS HIS 40 DAY UPDATE:*

Heres my day 40 update. Holy crap i just rung a bud out like a sponge. HaHa
At day 40 i started my flush on Apollolicious and had to stake up the chemd. Peace LL

Heres Day 20 


Heres 20 days later (day40)


THE PICS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 1, 2010)

tj.shulman said:


> Good good!
> So the 4 leaves I have cut + the top is all that I need to do you reckon?
> No more even as the plant grows?


. That's all I do - a lot of fuss over four or five leaves but that's all it takes.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 1, 2010)

> THE PICS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.


. But you don't have a comparison plant you didn't prune so we'll never know which is better.


----------



## YungMoolaBaby (Jul 2, 2010)

Well it wasn't my plant. It's "Lifeless" 's plant.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 2, 2010)

I chopped the main colas of the fimmed and fimmed plus pruned plants today. Sopping wet weight of 1.4 ounces for the fimmed and 1.7 ounces for the fimmed plus pruned. So far pruning is winning again.


----------



## Nitegazer (Jul 3, 2010)

desertrat said:


> I chopped the main colas of the fimmed and fimmed plus pruned plants today. Sopping wet weight of 1.4 ounces for the fimmed and 1.7 ounces for the fimmed plus pruned. So far pruning is winning again.



Ah, those are the numbers we were all waiting for-- pictures can be deceiving, after all. Case closed (for that strain, at least)?


----------



## Weedoozie (Jul 3, 2010)

desertrat said:


> I chopped the main colas of the fimmed and fimmed plus pruned plants today. Sopping wet weight of 1.4 ounces for the fimmed and 1.7 ounces for the fimmed plus pruned. So far pruning is winning again.


Nice, good to know
Thanks Desertrat!


----------



## desertrat (Jul 3, 2010)

Nitegazer said:


> Ah, those are the numbers we were all waiting for-- pictures can be deceiving, after all. Case closed (for that strain, at least)?


 still more to go, I just cut the tops off both plants. Final final results for this crop is still 3 weeks out for a dry weight comparison of the whole plants.



Weedoozie said:


> Nice, good to know
> Thanks Desertrat!


 you're welcome. Stay tuned.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 4, 2010)

Dry weight of pruned/fimmed top cola of the lowryder was 14 grams. Dry weight of the fimmed only cola was 10 grams.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Jul 4, 2010)

desertrat said:


> Dry weight of pruned/fimmed top cola of the lowryder was 14 grams. Dry weight of the fimmed only cola was 10 grams.


Desertrat, Im all for people experimenting to see if something works or not, but using plants from seed for this experiment can easily invalidate your findings, not to mention sample size as well. The results you got could give you enough 'evidence' to try it with clones, but until you try it with clones, you really haven't proven anything. 

You could easily grow out 9 seeds from the same strain, and 1/3rd could have great branching, 1/3rd moderate branching, and 1/3rd poor branching, and Im sure you are smart enough to know this. 

I will be looking forward to any results from a clone run though.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 5, 2010)

I have been posting to cannabis forums for over 10 years and have never seen any forum "experiment" or journal that subscribes to standard empirical testing procedures. 

People see what they expect or choose to see. 

UB


----------



## desertrat (Jul 5, 2010)

DaveCoulier said:


> Desertrat, Im all for people experimenting to see if something works or not, but using plants from seed for this experiment can easily invalidate your findings, not to mention sample size as well. The results you got could give you enough 'evidence' to try it with clones, but until you try it with clones, you really haven't proven anything.
> 
> You could easily grow out 9 seeds from the same strain, and 1/3rd could have great branching, 1/3rd moderate branching, and 1/3rd poor branching, and Im sure you are smart enough to know this.
> 
> I will be looking forward to any results from a clone run though.


 agreed best to use clones but I didn't have that option until I finished my second grow room about a month ago. Growing my first mother plants as we speak. As for sample size, this is the fifth plant to plant comparison I've done, all with the same result, which gives some scientific validity to this notion even without clones. Also, i posted so other people will try it, getting even more data points. Frankly the results have been so clear that I'm not that excited about "wasting" plants by not pruning, but I suppose for the general good I can do a couple more.



Uncle Ben said:


> I have been posting to cannabis forums for over 10 years and have never seen any forum "experiment" or journal that subscribes to standard empirical testing procedures.
> 
> People see what they expect or choose to see.
> 
> UB


And I have been a professional research and development engineer for 30 years and know how to run a controlled experiment in my sleep. That "see what they expect to see" dig misses the target when I have hard results. That would be 14 grams to 10, so far.


----------



## Hotwired (Jul 5, 2010)

I already stated 20 pages back that this will most likely NOT be good for clones. Especially if the nodes are widely spaced due to the nodes growing offset. I believe you will need every leaf for clones. 

Then again if you have the right strain, or the right phenotype of a real bushy plant, then it might work. You really need to have those nodes close because if you don't have enough "store rooms" for your plant then you might as well kill it.

I also believe this experiment is strain dependent as mine failed to work with my purple haze. I actually had a few grams less on the pruned one.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 7, 2010)

It takes 15 leaves to properly ripen one cluster of grapes.


----------



## researchkitty (Jul 7, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> I have been posting to cannabis forums for over 10 years and have never seen any forum "experiment" or journal that subscribes to standard empirical testing procedures.
> 
> People see what they expect or choose to see.
> 
> UB


You should read my journal then, that documents a topped vs untopped 18 plant experiment where YOUR topping method yielded substantially more. Its done under the same conditions in the same environment at the same time on the same nutrients etc etc etc....  I was tired of your thread being 54 pages long with nobody knowing if it worked better or not, so I tested it.

People posting on the boards generally cant reference anything, though. Such as the vegging 18/6 instead of 24/0 -- people say its proven 18/6 is better, nobody can say why. People say that HPS and MH at the same time in flowering are better, yet nobody tries it with two HPS and one HPS/MH in a test. IF someone could do a comparitive side by side of all the growing techniques and methods, which would take YEARS to do, then one system would come out as the best way to grow -- period. But we arent at that point, and likely wont be for a very long time. RIU is loaded with smaller grows. Most growers here dont grow on a large scale (I think of large as being 10,000 watts or more). The large scale growers is who all the little guys should watch for tips.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 7, 2010)

researchkitty said:


> You should read my journal then, that documents a topped vs untopped 18 plant experiment where YOUR topping method yielded substantially more.


Well done. Also note I don't remove leaves with the 4 colas drill, no matter what the situation. I assume you left the leaves intact and tried to maintain them in a functional fashion until harvest?

You make some great points too about the he said she saids. BTW, the experiment needs to be replicated at least 3 times to be considered valid, 'constants' aside.  

Tio


----------



## researchkitty (Jul 7, 2010)

UB: The leaves I remove were only if the leaves were dead. Out of 18 plants, I'd say there was about 10-15 leaves removed from the beginning of flowering until the end of flowering. No removal of any green, just yellow crispy leaves. Green = Bud = Happy, so I leave it all of that I can. I never understand why people grow plants 3x as tall as they need to be only to trim the bottom of the plant away. Grow em shorter, and use ALL the green! 

Trying to decide the next experiment, got 4 lights worth of plants just finishing germination........... I like the idea of foliar vs non foliar spray test, but that's pretty boring to me. Gotta find something more fun than that!


----------



## 1badmasonman (Jul 7, 2010)

Very interesting points on both sides. And way to handle a controlled argument gentlemen. This has been a interesting read. Im currently flowering all of my clone mothers that have been topped at every new shoot for 4-6 sets of clones. I never removed any fan leaves as im in the know about them being solar energy receptors. Now my point is that even though I have some major bushing going on the lower buds and budsites are developing unifomly with the rest of the plant. Fan leaves doing there job IMHO. 

Many points have been made about light being blocked. Why not get some bamboo rods and spread out the canopy a bit. Works well for me. 

Desertrat. I can see how your tech would be helpful in a scrog where you want to keep an even canopy across a large area. That and the secondary growth becomes the focus of energy until it catches up to the primary growth. Interesting theory but, nothing bending over the leading branches cant duplicate. 

Anyways it looks like things are working out for ya so do what ya do. and good luck with the final results. Peace 1BMM


----------



## DaveCoulier (Jul 7, 2010)

researchkitty said:


> UB: The leaves I remove were only if the leaves were dead. Out of 18 plants, I'd say there was about 10-15 leaves removed from the beginning of flowering until the end of flowering. No removal of any green, just yellow crispy leaves. Green = Bud = Happy, so I leave it all of that I can. I never understand why people grow plants 3x as tall as they need to be only to trim the bottom of the plant away. Grow em shorter, and use ALL the green!
> 
> Trying to decide the next experiment, got 4 lights worth of plants just finishing germination........... I like the idea of foliar vs non foliar spray test, but that's pretty boring to me. Gotta find something more fun than that!


Kitty, I think you are like me. Id love to do a bunch of tests to find out whats best for our plants, and what doesn't really work. Shit, Ive been making a list of things I want to test when I expand in the future. Im gonna read your journal to check out the topping vs not topping, but I was already sold on it after my first grow, which involved topping.

With regards to your previous post about light schedules, rest periods I believe are essential. Check out my journal, and you'll find a good post where I show plants under 24/0, then under 12/12. The dark periods really accelerated their growth and put an end to the nutrient deficiencies they were experiencing.


----------



## Brick Top (Jul 7, 2010)

1badmasonman said:


> Many points have been made about light being blocked. Why not get some bamboo rods and spread out the canopy a bit. Works well for me.


A leaf will only absorb roughly 15% of the light that strikes it and the remaining roughly 85% passes through to then strike lower leaves so leaves do not actually block as much light as some people believe they do. If the lower portions of plants are not receiving adequate light then it is almost certain that the lighting is just inadequate to begin with and removing healthy leaves is not the best way to make up for inadequate lighting.


----------



## jfa916 (Jul 7, 2010)

those are bob ass plants everyone


----------



## 1badmasonman (Jul 7, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> A leaf will only absorb roughly 15% of the light that strikes it and the remaining roughly 85% passes through to then strike lower leaves so leaves do not actually block as much light as some people believe they do. If the lower portions of plants are not receiving adequate light then it is almost certain that the lighting is just inadequate to begin with and removing healthy leaves is not the best way to make up for inadequate lighting.


Agreed Brick Top..


----------



## riddleme (Jul 7, 2010)

what he said (bricktop) ^^^^^^ I have a ditty in my nuggets that explains how shade leaves are actualy more productive

no disrespect to your technique desert


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 7, 2010)

researchkitty said:


> Trying to decide the next experiment, got 4 lights worth of plants just finishing germination........... I like the idea of foliar vs non foliar spray test, but that's pretty boring to me. Gotta find something more fun than that!


You understand botany, good on ya!

Next experiment? Temperature variance regarding diurnal swings as it affects health/vigor? How about an observation of a day/night swing of 5F or 0F versus 20F. Might be hard to control though. 

I have to laugh when I read a bank's description about finishing times for a mutt. They give this black and white version of X weeks never taking into account the botanical factors such as temps. Needless to say, a cold garden will finish far later than a garden kept warm.

UB


----------



## Weedoozie (Jul 7, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> a cold garden will finish far later than a garden kept warm.
> UB


Aw man, its very true. My greenhouse outdoor garden is in the only place I can have it on my property and that is on the coast of Northern California. My garden can get quite cold, windy, foggy, and wet but when those nice days come, my plants go through serious growth spurts. Although I know my plants would do better in a warmer area possibly farther on the mainland, I don't have the option of moving them. I'll keep the forums updates on how my crop turns out in this cooler coastal climate


----------



## desertrat (Jul 7, 2010)

you go away for a day and everyone hijacks the thread. there's no disagreement on topping, the question at hand is pruning. i think most people are missing the point of this thread - that pruning does indeed "injure" the plant, and in this case the injury is intentional. you want the main stem to slow down and pruning does just that. you want the side branches to accelerate in growth, and pruning does that. what you get is a bunch of growth tips all at the same height, and that is what this technique accomplishes. why do you want all of the growth tips at the same height? physics - i don't think people realize the implication of the inverse square law for light intensity in indoor grows. for instance, with a 600 watt hps light you have a three inch window to maximize your growth between 11,000 lumens per square foot at 21 inches away from the bulb and 7,000 lumens per square foot at 24 inches away. outside that 3 inch window your plant is getting too much or too little light. this small window is the factor that impacts light penetration much more so than leaves blocking light. this small window is why pruning works. that simple.


----------



## Brick Top (Jul 7, 2010)

desertrat said:


> you go away for a day and everyone hijacks the thread. there's no disagreement on topping, the question at hand is pruning. i think most people are missing the point of this thread - that pruning does indeed "injure" the plant, and in this case the injury is intentional. you want the main stem to slow down and pruning does just that. you want the side branches to accelerate in growth, and pruning does that. what you get is a bunch of growth tips all at the same height, and that is what this technique accomplishes. why do you want all of the growth tips at the same height? physics - i don't think people realize the implication of the inverse square law for light intensity in indoor grows. for instance, with a 600 watt hps light you have a three inch window to maximize your growth between 11,000 lumens per square foot at 21 inches away from the bulb and 7,000 lumens per square foot at 24 inches away. outside that 3 inch window your plant is getting too much or too little light. this small window is the factor that impacts light penetration much more so than leaves blocking light. this small window is why pruning works. that simple.



What remains questionable is how someone can reduce the amount of energy a plant can create by removing healthy leaves and how when healthy foliage is removed from a healthy plant a healthy plant will always attempt to replace the lost foliage so it will redirect energy that would otherwise go to other existing growth to replacing the lost foliage. 

So how does the combination of decreased energy production and lost energy storage and redirected plant energy then used to replace lost healthy foliage equate to increased amounts of energy for growth? Someone who removes healthy leaves reduces the total amount of energy a plant can create and store so while energy will be diverted by trimming, just as with topping, there is also a net loss of total energy the plant will have to rely on for growth.

The belief of removing healthy leaves for bud development is based in flawed logic. Someone cannot increase plant energy by reducing it. 

If the purpose is only to create shorter plants with thicker growth there is some logic behind what is claimed because energy will be redirected but even then it is questionable as to if it really is more beneficial than it is harmful and home experiments are not really conclusive proof in that the claimed outcome is always only based in what can be observed and what can be sensed when sampled. Due to genetic differences in plants that can appear to the human eye to be the same phenotype but really are not any observed results cannot be positively proven in a home experiment. All such results can only observed and sensed at best but never accurately tested and proved unless someone has access to a sophisticated lab and knows various testing procedures and carries them out at different stages of growth and documents anything and everything that occurs. 

The question of how someone can increase plant energy by reducing a plant's ability to create and store energy still remains even when only talking about trimming while in a vegetative stage of growth. How does one add by performing subtraction? 

Possibly the idea is sacrifice now for something else, possibly more, later. (Which could only occur if new growth after the initial trimming is not removed.) Even with that the question of is there an actual overall net gain or an overall net loss remains and real plant research says there should not be an overall net gain. 

It all comes down to the simple basic question of how can someone add by performing subtraction?


----------



## desertrat (Jul 7, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> What remains questionable is how someone can reduce the amount of energy a plant can create by removing healthy leaves and how when healthy foliage is removed from a healthy plant a healthy plant will always attempt to replace the lost foliage so it will redirect energy that would otherwise go to other existing growth to replacing the lost foliage.
> 
> So how does the combination of decreased energy production and lost energy storage and redirected plant energy then used to replace lost healthy foliage equate to increased amounts of energy for growth? Someone who removes healthy leaves reduces the total amount of energy a plant can create and store so while energy will be diverted by trimming, just as with topping, there is also a net loss of total energy the plant will have to rely on for growth.
> 
> ...



My advantage in this discussion is that I know absolutely nothing about botany but know more than 99% of population about physics. A very simple example, take your basic plant sunning itself under a 600 watt light. It's a three foot tall female and you have your lights exactly 22 inches away from all four of your topped colas and they are getting 10,000 lumens per square inch. Brilliant job. Now let's look at those first few nodes and their colas. They might be a quarter the size of one of your main colas? Why? Well they would be on average 40 inches away from the bulb - and getting less than 3,000 lumens per square foot(by memory, might be a little off).

All we are debating is whether you gain more by injuring the plant to create equidistant growth tips or does the injury to the plant overcome the benefit of increased light efficiency. My results so far say the benefit outweighs the injury.


----------



## ColaFarmer (Jul 7, 2010)

Agree 100%. Lots of people will gladly disagree with that logic.

You see plants all the time being pruned, Marijuana is a plant and all it does is grow.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 7, 2010)

desertrat said:


> My advantage in this discussion is that I know absolutely nothing about botany


Your advantage, eh? Bullshit, you need to learn what makes a plant tick and stop the theatrics and gimmicks. No better time to start than now, and while you're at it, learn what a plant's light saturation point means. What does physics have to do with anything? What light meter do you use relative to your nutrition program?

There is no such thing as "injury" when it comes to removing leaves. It becomes an issue of the redirection of auxins and the loss of photosynthetic carbo production, either temporarily or permanently.

You're sitting here dodging BT's valid questions.

UB


----------



## Brick Top (Jul 7, 2010)

ColaFarmer said:


> Agree 100%. Lots of people will gladly disagree with that logic.
> 
> You see plants all the time being pruned, Marijuana is a plant and all it does is grow.


The Chinese bound the feet of female children resulting in deformed feet that were fashionable. Because it was common did that make it good and or better than not binding feet?

The point is not what a light puts out in lumens or distance from plants/leaves/buds but instead that of a plant's ability to absorb and process the light it has access to, to create energy. If leaves are removed the ability to absorb and process light to create energy is reduced and nothing will ever change that fact. 

It is like having a home that is 100% solar and in an effort to increase the amount of energy the home's solar system can create someone removes their largest most efficient solar panels. 

Addition cannot be performed by subtraction. Redirection of energy will occur in plants when topping and or trimming is performed but what is then being redirected is redirected from a lesser total overall amount of energy. There cannot be an overall net gain of energy creation as a result of reducing a plant's ability to absorb light rays and create and store energy. 

A plant has a limited ability to absorb and process light regardless of the source of light or distance from the light. Call the total amount of energy a healthy complete/not trimmed plant can absorb and create for growth 'X.' When healthy leaves are removed that reduces the total amount of light able to be collected, processed and available for growth to say 'P.' So now rather than 'X' energy you have 'P' energy. From 'P' a certain amount will be directed to replace the lost healthy foliage leaving what might be called 'K' amount of energy for the remaining portion of a plant to rely on. 

By removing healthy leaves you go from the total amount of energy 'X' to the total amount of energy reduced to 'P' and part of that goes to regain what was removed leaving only 'K' amount of energy for the rest of the plant. 

Where is the true gain of energy supposed to be found in an overall amount that has to have been reduced through loss of collection and processing and storage of energy? Regardless of lumens and physics that will never change. This is a situation where botanical science holds the trump card over physics and what is believed to be observed and sensed by someone when they look at their plants and sample them. 

Cannabis plants are rough tough plants even though they can give some people fits at times and growing them is as easy as falling off a log but growing them to their full genetic potential is about as easy as peeling a turtle and not many of us ever manage to grow our plants to their full genetic potential. 

Since some prefer to attempt to keep a separation between botanical science and cannabis plants they will always see various different methods of growing as being perfectly viable options but in the end it comes down to how close to growing a plant to its full genetic potential is someone satisfied with and is gimmick-growing more important to them than final results only because it appeals to them for some reason and the reasons behind growing that way seem to be logical to them regardless of the facts they refuse to accept? 

People will believe something they read or are told that is not actually accurate and if it is questioned by some they will then often times set out to prove their belief to be accurate. When someone does that it is inevitable that their perceived facts will be shaped to fit their previously accepted theory rather than the true facts shaping and creating a valid theory. What they see and sense will only be in many cases exactly what they want to see and sense and any inconvenient facts will be dismissed for being nothing more than a trivial insignificant anomaly.

People are of course free to believe whatever they wish to believe. Myself I would really like to believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the missile shield and strippers with a heart of gold but unfortunately for me since I know certain proven facts I am forced to accept those proven facts and the things I would love to believe in I am unable to believe in and the same goes for gimmick-growing methods. 

But everyone needs to be happy with what they do so they can of course carry on as normal if that is where they find happiness, contentment, fulfillment and where they find the successes they need in life.


----------



## sixstring2112 (Jul 7, 2010)

are you telling me there is no easter bunny? WTF? brick top you should have been a writer,maybe you are but good explanation.


----------



## Brick Top (Jul 7, 2010)

sixstring2112 said:


> are you telling me there is no easter bunny? WTF? brick top you should have been a writer,maybe you are but good explanation.


Funny you should mention that but from 7th grade through college almost every teacher and professor I had told me I should become a writer. Being the uber-intelligent person that I am I naturally became a car dealer and a boat dealer and ended up part owner in a nursery rather than a writer. 

I think what stopped me is for all my education I never really fully got the hang of comas and things. I believe that every single teacher and professor that told me I should become a writer then added that I would of course need someone to correct my punctuation and to trim my run-on sentences into numerous paragraphs and sentences. (Things like word processors and spell and grammar checkers did not exist way back when so a backup person would have been very needed indeed.)


----------



## desertrat (Jul 7, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Your advantage, eh? Bullshit, you need to learn what makes a plant tick and stop the theatrics and gimmicks. No better time to start than now, and while you're at it, learn what a plant's light saturation point means. What does physics have to do with anything? What light meter do you use relative to your nutrition program?
> 
> There is no such thing as "injury" when it comes to removing leaves. It becomes an issue of the redirection of auxins and the loss of photosynthetic carbo production, either temporarily or permanently.
> 
> ...


You're projecting again. It is you who is avoiding addressing my points. As you will. Don't worry, i'll get to everybody's worthwhile post, as I always do. Just scurrying around getting ready to be gone for 8 days. Might be a couple of weeks before I get back here, might get a chance on the road, but be assured I will respond. God willing.

And that would be my nist certified zero to 40,000 foot-candle light meter. Will you take my word for that or are you going to question my integrity again? I guess I could take a pic of the certification document. And you get exactly the same answer if you do the geometry, so the meter's for people who don't understand the physics. 

What you refuse to get is that I respect your botany knowledge and experience a lot, but that does not mean that there is nothing left to learn in the field of applied botany in the indoor cultivation of cannabis. I think this is a case where the unique environment of an indoor grow caused by the physics of artificial light makes what would be a stupid strategy outdoors to at least be an approach worth careful testing. You are showing your closed-mindedness by not carefully considering that there may be something here. 

I want to think you're better than that.


----------



## dtp5150 (Jul 7, 2010)

my theory:

why does marijuana grow fan leaves?

energy storage : as long as we keep pumping her full of nutes she wont need much stored energy

light : all those fan leaves block light that could be going to lower nodes, and anything green creates photosynthesis, so remove those fan leaves while in veg, and everything will bush up instead of just the top of the plant. also helps if you tie down some plant main stems after topping

what else can absorb light? green buds! so when the plant is flowering, it is essentially replacing all the fan leaves with buds instead to collect sunlight


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 7, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> What remains questionable is how someone can reduce the amount of energy a plant can create by removing healthy leaves and how when healthy foliage is removed from a healthy plant a healthy plant will always attempt to replace the lost foliage so it will redirect energy that would otherwise go to other existing growth to replacing the lost foliage.
> 
> So how does the combination of decreased energy production and lost energy storage and redirected plant energy then used to replace lost healthy foliage equate to increased amounts of energy for growth? Someone who removes healthy leaves reduces the total amount of energy a plant can create and store so while energy will be diverted by trimming, just as with topping, there is also a net loss of total energy the plant will have to rely on for growth.
> 
> ...


You are a good poster Brick Top, I respect the amount of time that you put into your posts.

I think part of the answer here is that we are not talking about a finite amount of energy. If you want bigger plants you veg them longer. Less energy over a longer period of time still provides enough energy to get the job done.

Now, IMO what desert rat is doing is sacrificing some of that energy and some of that time to cause the plant to change from a christmas tree shape to something more adaptable to lower light levels. This allows the plant to absorb more energy at later stages of life due to its more bushy shape. ER: the light can be closer to the bulk of the plant.

I can see how both arguments could still be consistent with the data provided.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Jul 8, 2010)

dtp5150 said:


> my theory:
> 
> why does marijuana grow fan leaves?
> 
> ...


Yeah our buds are green, so they contain chlorophyll, but I bet if you removed _every _single leaf, your buds wont grow very well if even at all. Buds are supplied their sugars and whatnot for growth from the nearest fan leaves. Id like to have those large fan leaves attached to my budsites personally. 

Besides, it just doesn't make sense for buds to take over photosynthesis for flowering as you suggested. Thats not their job. Its to reproduce. Why would nature want to double her workload? She wouldn't. 

I like to think of the buds as queens, and the fan leaves and bud leaves are her servants. Those queens need someone to prepare food for her to eat, and well by god she's too regal to do it herself.


----------



## colonuggs (Jul 8, 2010)

As the plant progresses in flower ...its turns its energy from leaf production to flower production thats why the leaves start loosing their color and turn yellow

I know i personally will strip almost all fan leaves for the last 2 weeks of flower... it allows the light to penetrate more and your buds get fatter


----------



## Nitegazer (Jul 8, 2010)

It's fascinating for me how much resistance there is to accept that pruning fan leaves can lead to advantageous redirection of growth. Topping is the removal of healthy tissue (the apical meristem for chrissakes); air pruning kills off the growing tips of the roots--- both of these are accepted at boosting yield even though they damage the plant. So there is not an inherrant conflict between plant 'damage' and boost of yield. 

Desertrat has run a simple experiment; no, it does not take place in a lab in a perfectly controlled environment, but it has produced interesting results, which I think invites more experimentation. Instead of arguing how the result could not be valid, some of the experienced growers here would do well to try the experiment themselves. Nothing would validate this approach more than a fervent non-believer switching sides. It would be like Nixon going to China, lol.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 8, 2010)

desertrat, with all due respect, the following is the mindset you're endorsing and promoting for noobs that don't understand botany but instead want to believe in some gimmicktry. I'll address the following ill conceived comments, since they fall in line with your recommendations to make my point. (I see my comment about ripening grapes went over everyone's head).



dtp5150 said:


> my theory:
> 
> why does marijuana grow fan leaves?
> 
> energy storage : as long as we keep pumping her full of nutes she wont need much stored energy


Nutes? No. Nutes aka salts are used by the fan leaves for producing proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, enzymes, etc.

Extremely efficient Photon collectors, yes. Why do you think they extend so far out from the plant on long petioles and are so large?



> light : all those fan leaves block light that could be going to lower nodes, and anything green creates photosynthesis, so remove those fan leaves while in veg, and everything will bush up instead of just the top of the plant.


Wrong, they do not block light, they collect it. An apple will ripen, shaded by the branches and leaf mass above it.



> what else can absorb light? green buds! so when the plant is flowering, *it is essentially replacing all the fan leaves with buds instead to collect sunlight*


No it is not. If you're losing most of your fan leaves by harvest, it's YOUR fault. In spite of another popular paradigm parroted by The Herd around here, you are not applying good culture if you lose most of your fans leaves by harvest, it means you don't know what you're doing and/or are following the wrong advice.

Like I said before, "green buds" do NOT contain sufficient green surface area, leaf mass, to be of any REAL world benefit to the plant regarding good photosynthesis resulting in the production of bud.

You guys are more enamored with theories and fallacies than learning what makes a plant tick. You have to be (horticulturally) ignorant to think that by removing the very unit that produces bud, you'll get more bud.

UB


----------



## desertrat (Jul 8, 2010)

Uncle Ben, with all due respect, that's why I reply to almost all of those kinds of posts with caveats as to why I don't think someone's take on it is correct. Go back and look at the thread. I can lead a horse to water but it is not my fault if they drown in it. Just like anything in life, there are a few ways to do pruning right and millions of ways to prune wrong. Topping is one way to prune correctly. I think the removal of 5 or 6 fan leaves below the topped node will prove to be another. Let's let the results speak for the technique and please stop with the digs, questions about my integrity or my ability to run a valid experiment. I promise to continue to respect your knowledge of botany.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 8, 2010)

Nitegazer said:


> It's fascinating for me how much resistance there is to accept that pruning fan leaves can lead to advantageous redirection of growth.


IF, it results in leaf mass replacement equal to or greater than the initial removal. It's all in the balance.



> Topping is the removal of healthy tissue (the apical meristem for chrissakes);


And with what result? I don't think he is talking about topping, a training technique. He is talking about the wholesale removal of the very unit that produces bud (for chrissakes).



> 2. on the main branch *only*, prune every other fan leaf in a staircase pattern. this slows the growth of the main stem and for some reason stimulates the growth of secondary branches.


....and induces (or should) foliar output from the axial node sites. So, what have you gained? You've removed plant material only to have it replaced? Doesn't make sense to me.

What's really funny, upon further examination of "the technique", if you top above the 4th node (step #1), you NO LONGER HAVE A "MAIN BRANCH". duh........ Instead of having one or two dominant leaders (main colas), you now have 8 secondarys. Your "main branch" is sitting there on the compost pile. 

You'd know better if you understood what makes a plant tick, if you understood plant hormonal responses which I have elaborated on in my sticky topping thread.

I've seen this kinda of voodoo bullshit in its various forms for many years and lo and behold, you can count on every new crop of cannabis forum noobs to want to believe in something other than common botanical sense. It's human nature to be dreamers, be lazy, follow The Herd so you can be a party to it and get a feeling of acceptance. Popular opinion does not mean it's so. In fact, most popular opinions found in cannabis forums are ill conceived and flat ass wrong. 

BTW, desertrat is parroting someone else which is what folks do. It's the message I'm dissing, not necessarily him (the messenger). 

UB


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 8, 2010)

> It's human nature to be dreamers, be lazy, follow The Herd so you can be a party to it and get a feeling of acceptance. Popular opinion does mean it's so. In fact, most popular opinions found in cannabis forums are flat ass wrong.


It is normal to follow the herd yet you mock him for making his own path?

I dont know jack shit about botany. I am dumb as a post about growing plants. The ones around me are lucky that they might make it to the end. I am not trying to speak as an expert grower or an expert botanist.

What I will ask is... How did botany develop? I mean the science of botany? Wasnt it trial and error and recording the observations of such in a scientific environment with a scientific method? Didnt it develop like all other sciences with the sharing of ideas in an effort to understand plant life? Wasnt there some point at which the science of botany did not exist and it simply grew (pardon the pun) from the base of observation?

Now, in this scenario I see a poster "desert rat" trying an *experiment* on his plants. He has a control group and he has a pruned group. And it appears at least for him that the pruned group outperforms the control group. You are bashing him for following the same process that developed the science of botany in the first place. Dont you think that is a tad hypocritical? Do you think that everything about botany ever to be discovered already has and the book is closed?

He is not trying to sell this info, he has nothing to personally gain from being right, in fact he is risking alot because he has no control over the experiments other people do and their success or more likely failure based on outside forces making the growing conditions not equal. In addition, there will always be people that will immediately attack his results based on their vast knowledge of (botany, growing, etc...) and say that it simply would not work that way.

What I appreciate is that he is taking the time to attempt experiments using the scientific method and publishing them for discussion. That is the most fundamental part of the scientific process. It generates thought and discussion and spins off further experiments. And even if all of them are done in this imperfect petri dish of outlaw growers there is a good chance that certain techniques could still increase yield on plants.

I dont know if I will ever try this technique or not, I am still trying to muddle through my first grow...

Thanks DR + rep for the effort.


----------



## Brick Top (Jul 8, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> What I will ask is... How did botany develop? I mean the science of botany? Wasnt it trial and error and recording the observations of such in a scientific environment with a scientific method? Didnt it develop like all other sciences with the sharing of ideas in an effort to understand plant life? Wasnt there some point at which the science of botany did not exist and it simply grew (pardon the pun) from the base of observation?



Going back to the 12th century AD when it all began yes botanical science was nothing more than observation, trial and error but we have stepped out of the pre-dark ages and into the light of present day modern science. Going back to the days of looking, guessing and making decisions based on little or nothing more is not true scientific experimentation by today's standards and as shocking as it might be to some, we live in the now, today is where we exist. Such old-time ways proves nothing, especially when what is believed to be discovered through observation and assumption that is pure guesswork and nothing more flies in the face of proven botanical science. 

If you wanted to build an aircraft would you ignore all the years and decades of advancement in aircraft design or would you instead ignore all of it and instead try to design and build something along the lines of what Orville and Wilbur Wright built? 

What if NASA were given the task to return to the moon, rather than its latest given task, to help make the Muslim world feel better about itself, would NASA not bother to use what it has learned and instead attempt to recreate something along the lines of the Apollo space craft? 

Why not just accept proven botanical facts rather than going back and attempt to recreate the wheel, and in doing so make it square rather than round?


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 8, 2010)

> Why not just accept proven botanical facts rather than going back and attempt to recreate the wheel, and in doing so make it square rather than round?


Those proven botanical facts have been around since the same time people were SURE the earth was flat and the sun rotated around it because the earth was the center of the universe. It was science back then. Happily, things have changed.

Science is a process.... A never ending process.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 8, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> It is normal to follow the herd yet you mock him for making his own path?


He's not making his path. He is parroting what someone else did, as I said in the last line of my previous post. READ



> I dont know jack shit about botany.


Then it's time you learn, it's time you empowered yourself........ or wander around here blindly following crap advice, nutes, rip off products, etc.

Happy muddling,
UB


----------



## riddleme (Jul 8, 2010)

I love experiments and I am currently sub'd to this one and the CO2 one. I, like UB and BT do not endorse removing fan leaves but admit lots of folks do it and I see thier post as trying to point out certain things to new growers rather than a slam on this experiment.

I say to Desertrat, keep doing what your doing and nevermind the debate, it is after all your experiment and what others draw from it will be up to them. If we stop experimenting we will eventually stagnate, while there is no holy grail to induce huge buds there are techniques that have proven sucessful and those techniques were discovered thru expermintation

kudos for not only making your own path but also for sharing your journey!


----------



## Nitegazer (Jul 8, 2010)

UB,

I think we can safely all agree that leaves help the plant grow and removal at least temporarily reduces the plants ability to produce energy. Your arguments do not, however, address the experiment that has been conducted.

I would state the hypothesis Desertrat is working on as follows: Removing select fan leaves early in development promotes branching at the expense of short term plant growth; the resulting increased branching will lead to higher yields in some grow room setups (probably lower wattage indoor grows ie. <1000W).

A brief scan of research through Google brought up other experiments that could support or undermine Desertrats approach. Note that these were just quick finds, and may not truly apply to the questions at hand.

Leaf Removal and the Apparent Affects of Architectural Constraints on Development in Capsicum Annuum (Green Peppers)  Lisa P. Thomas and Maxine Watson. -- Removing leaves within a branch system resulted in a significant decrease in further sympodial growth by that branch

The effect of leaf and shoot tip removal and explant orientation on axillary shoot proliferation of Codiaeum variegatum Blume var. pictum Muell. Arg. cv. Excellent (Caladium) - Teresa Orlikowska, , Izabela Saba a and Danuta Kucharska
The removal of all developed leaves from 1 to 1.5 cm shoots of _Codiaeum variegatum_ Blume _var. pictum_ Muell. Arg. Excellentdoubled the number of axillary shoots in comparison to non-defoliated controls.

A modeling exploration of branch extension, defoliation responses, and carbohydrate physiology in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)- David Thornby, Jim Hanan
Experiments showed that the development rate of cotton seedlings main stems was not affected by defoliation regimes of varying severity (25-65%)

Botany does not support the broad claim that any leaf removal reduces yield. If Desertrats experiment is being refuted with botany, than some sort of real analysis of the available literature is in order. Specifically, I would look for experiments with fruiting annuals where subtending leafs are removed and effects on branching are noted.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 8, 2010)

I love experiments too, been doing them for decades. How do you think the UB topping to get 2-4 colas came about? I just get rubbed the wrong way when someone fishes for noobie interest in a forum by starting a thread with a dreamie title of "anybody want to double their yields?" as if they've found some new fangled method. Ever thought that it could actually reduce your yields by half? Forums are full of such threads, there's a new now in Advanced. Trust me, whatever you do, it's been done before in some form or fashion. If you want to get the skinny on some bonafide empirical research conducted by a University, then buy Mel Frank's MJ Insiders Guide.

I presented my arguments, pointing out the fallacy that topping above the 4th node and you'll still have a "main branch". That's just not true, only noobs will fall for such crap. What's with the stair step drill, botanically? If removal of some fans is super duper, then it seems to me that removal of all is better.

Every time someone starts another one of these boring "remove fan leaves" threads I tell 'em now to remove all of them. 

I "leaf" grape vines, but that is a drill for entirely different results. Removing leaves around the clusters for exposure to UV before the clusters have closed gives you a less herbaeous taste in a wine, toughens up the skin, and greatly improves skin anthocyanin production. Apples and oranges compared to cannabis.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 8, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> He's not making his path. He is parroting what someone else did, as I said in the last line of my previous post. READ


Well then he is parroting something someone else did that is enhancing his grow apparently. Isnt that what we all do here? Dont you advise people to parrot your growing techniques for success?



> Then it's time you learn, it's time you empowered yourself


I am learning every day through trial and error and experimentation. That is how botany and the other sciences were created. To assume that we know everything about botany is more than a little presumptuous.



> ........ or wander around here blindly following crap advice, nutes, rip off products, etc.


There are more than two options...



> Happy muddling, UB


Thanks, it has been a blast so far...


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 8, 2010)

Here's another thread that belongs in the Cannabis Hall of Fame of Quackery: https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/346874-monster-cropping-increasing-yield.html

...and another: https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/339989-how-grow-biggest-buds-ever.html

They're a dime a dozen.

UB


----------



## 1badmasonman (Jul 8, 2010)

Again very interesting points made on all sides. With all due respect, i have to side with UB on this one. Im a firm believer in fan leaves. UB noted that apples ripen on trees and they are not always in direct sunlight. This is TRUE. Same holds true with cannabis. Its flowers are not a direct result of how much light the bud site gets. Rather as mentioned the god given functional sytem of fan leaves to sugar leaves in all forms or fashions, removal does not = Double yield. Period. And I would have to respectfully agree with UB about the gimmick factor of the thread title. DOUBLE YOUR YEILD. Its a ruse to get noobs in the mix. 

So as we seem to be having a peacful debate going. Wheres the doubled yeild proof? I just dont see how topping VS selective pruning is going to "DOUBLE" my yeild. 

With repects to both men. Botany is the bible of floral proess. Many people know this and im no dif. Experimenting is fun and i do myself aswell, BUT i dont fool with manipulating what nature has found to be protocol. I do top my plants, some i let grow natural. Topping can happen naturaly in nature. And its like UB said a hormonal balance and removing a food source for fruit development just dont compute. 

However im in to see what happens here. Not bashing just watching. Respectfully with an open mind. But i feel asthough reinventing what mother nature has perfected is not going to DOUBLE MY YEILD. Peace 1BMM..


----------



## medicalmary (Jul 9, 2010)

Let me preface this question by stating I have not completed a cannabis grow yet. So, have we established that actual light reaching a bud site does not impact bud development? I'm wondering, because I would like to avoid airy popcorn bud on the lower parts of my plants. I'm not into fan leaf pruning, but would it be unreasonable to remove sucker tops that have very little chance of reaching the canopy of indoor grow environments? 

I'm approaching this not really scientifically, but more through rational thought. For example, when the first frost is in sight I remove undeveloped flower sights from my tomato plants in order to focus the plants productive power on the already more developed fruit.

So, if I remove these suckers, could it be beneficial to the other bud sights and therefore produce more premium flowers?

mm


----------



## riddleme (Jul 9, 2010)

medicalmary said:


> Let me preface this question by stating I have not completed a cannabis grow yet. So, have we established that actual light reaching a bud site does not impact bud development? I'm wondering, because I would like to avoid airy popcorn bud on the lower parts of my plants. I'm not into fan leaf pruning, but would it be unreasonable to remove sucker tops that have very little chance of reaching the canopy of indoor grow environments?
> 
> I'm approaching this not really scientifically, but more through rational thought. For example, when the first frost is in sight I remove undeveloped flower sights from my tomato plants in order to focus the plants productive power on the already more developed fruit.
> 
> ...


some will say yes and some will say no,,,,my answer would be no


----------



## medicalmary (Jul 9, 2010)

I thought I was the only one awake. Not to be difficult, but why?

mm


----------



## riddleme (Jul 9, 2010)

don't want to jack deserts thread, I think we have trampled on it enough,,will pm you


----------



## genuity (Jul 9, 2010)

medicalmary said:


> Let me preface this question by stating I have not completed a cannabis grow yet. So, have we established that actual light reaching a bud site does not impact bud development? I'm wondering, because I would like to avoid airy popcorn bud on the lower parts of my plants. I'm not into fan leaf pruning, but would it be unreasonable to remove sucker tops that have very little chance of reaching the canopy of indoor grow environments?
> 
> I'm approaching this not really scientifically, but more through rational thought. For example, when the first frost is in sight I remove undeveloped flower sights from my tomato plants in order to focus the plants productive power on the already more developed fruit.
> 
> ...


yes....take off the suckers,keep the fan leaves on.


----------



## medicalmary (Jul 9, 2010)

riddleme said:


> don't want to jack deserts thread, I think we have trampled on it enough,,will pm you


Gotcha, if ya have advice go to my journal. thanks.

mm


----------



## corvetteguy (Jul 9, 2010)

I am a noob here and in "NO" way should I be taken seriously. But it seems like everyone here is overlooking the obvious (I mean no offense to anyone). While I agree with everyone that more leaves do infact equal more bud. No one here seems to notice that given time to properly recover the topped/prunned plants seem to have more foliage going into flower than the unpruned plants do (or am I wrong)? And it seems to me to me that if (say for example removing 5 or 6 leaves allows 20 or 30 new leaves to grow, while at the same time moving more bud sites closer to the light, that this would be a good thing. So if I am correct here what rat has accomplished isn't meerly having moved more of his bud sites closer to his light, he has infact created MORE foliage therefore increased the rate of photosyinthis in his plant. And it seems that everyone here agrees unanimously that more foliage is a GOOD thing. Like I have already stated I AM A NOOB so please don't take me seriously, this is just somthing to think about and nothing more. I hope that I didn't offend anyone as I meant no offense. And I would like to take this opportunity to say that this site is AWESOME, and packed full of usefull info.I do appologise for the bad grammer,it never was my strong suit. And RAT I would like to thank you for taking the time to share your experiment, you and people like you are the reason that this site is the BEST.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 9, 2010)

corvetteguy said:


> While I agree with everyone that more leaves do infact equal more bud. *No one here* seems to notice that given time to properly recover the topped/prunned plants seem to have more foliage going into flower than the unpruned plants do (or am I wrong)?


Read the thread. I already addressed that, on the previous page.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Read the thread. I already addressed that, on the previous page.


You are a riot... You have a whole 250 page thread dedicated to YOUR method... Your WHOLE method involves cutting parts off plants and yet you are bashing another grower for doing the same thing.



> IF, it results in leaf mass replacement equal to or greater than the initial removal. It's all in the balance.


UB, have you somehow proven definitively that DR's pruning method does not achieve this goal?


----------



## Nitegazer (Jul 9, 2010)

corvetteguy said:


> I am a noob here and in "NO" way should I be taken seriously. But it seems like everyone here is overlooking the obvious (I mean no offense to anyone). While I agree with everyone that more leaves do infact equal more bud. No one here seems to notice that given time to properly recover the topped/prunned plants seem to have more foliage going into flower than the unpruned plants do (or am I wrong)? And it seems to me to me that if (say for example removing 5 or 6 leaves allows 20 or 30 new leaves to grow, while at the same time moving more bud sites closer to the light, that this would be a good thing. So if I am correct here what rat has accomplished isn't meerly having moved more of his bud sites closer to his light, he has infact created MORE foliage therefore increased the rate of photosyinthis in his plant. And it seems that everyone here agrees unanimously that more foliage is a GOOD thing. Like I have already stated I AM A NOOB so please don't take me seriously, this is just somthing to think about and nothing more. I hope that I didn't offend anyone as I meant no offense. And I would like to take this opportunity to say that this site is AWESOME, and packed full of usefull info.I do appologise for the bad grammer,it never was my strong suit. And RAT I would like to thank you for taking the time to share your experiment, you and people like you are the reason that this site is the BEST.


Great to have your input-- it makes me especially glad that the conversation here has remained civil. I think that several of the posters here would respond that leaf removal reduces the plant's ability to produce the energy necessary to create the vegitation closer to the light; and that less leaf = less plant energy-- period. At the moment, I'm in the other camp, but I don't know what the truth is yet-- that's why this experiment is so compelling.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 9, 2010)

Nitegazer said:


> Great to have your input-- it makes me especially glad that the conversation here has remained civil. I think that several of the posters here would respond that leaf removal reduces the plant's ability to produce the energy necessary to create the vegitation closer to the light; and that less leaf = less plant energy-- period. At the moment, I'm in the other camp, but I don't know what the truth is yet-- that's why this experiment is so compelling.


The problem with the argument about less leaf = less plant energy is the fact that it does not incorporate time into the equation.

There is no limit to vegetation on a normal strain. So, unless you are trying to break a speed record like Prof MJ or you are trying to up your commercial #'s by reducing the time of your crops then the argument is pretty pointless. Less energy = longer veg = more vegetation = more energy, it simply takes time to balance the equation.

The more the entrenched people state dogma about what is and what is not fact in the MJ growing world the more I want to try this experiment myself.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 9, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> Your WHOLE method involves cutting parts off plants and yet you are bashing another grower for doing the same thing.


Apples and oranges


----------



## mydixiewrecked (Jul 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Apples and oranges


yep, the way I read it, one is topping it once, the other is pruning.
topping is not removing necessary fan leaves..


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 9, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> The problem with the argument about less leaf = less plant energy is the fact that it does not incorporate time into the equation.
> 
> There is no limit to vegetation on a normal strain.


Tell that to a guy that's 6 weeks into flowering who's lost most of his fan leaves due to improper culture. Cannabis is an annual, it is a "determinate" plant with a finite amount of foliage upon maturity and a finite life unlike an indeterminate tomato.



> So, unless you are trying to break a speed record like Prof MJ or you are trying to up your commercial #'s by reducing the time of your crops then the argument is pretty pointless. Less energy = longer veg = more vegetation = more energy, it simply takes time to balance the equation.


The time element is genetically determined, all things considered. Has nothing to do with leaf mass.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> The time element is genetically determined, all things considered. Has nothing to do with leaf mass.


The time element I am referring to is the time in the vegetative state. Unless you are using an auto-flower strain I believe you can veg the plant for years if you choose to do so.


----------



## Weedoozie (Jul 9, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> The time element I am referring to is the time in the vegetative state. Unless you are using an auto-flower strain I believe you can veg the plant for years if you choose to do so.


Yes you can! I've seen cannabis TREES with my own two eyes in Humboldt county, some of them look to be almost 20 feet tall. I didn't even realize they were cannabis plants until my friend who lives there was showing me around and told me to pay particular attention to these trees because they are gorgeous, huge, and a lot of time, energy, and love has gone into keeping them alive. Clones are taken from these mother trees and seriously, they are the most amazing trees I've ever seen.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 9, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Apples and oranges



Aaaaah, that must be where the confusion is...

You see, we are growing Marijuana...


----------



## Cissy (Jul 10, 2010)

Uncle Ben/Brick Top

What do you two Gentlemen think of "lollipopping"? Is that a bad idea as well? Does cutting off the bottom 1/3, which never gets any light anyway, really force the plant to redirect its energy to the top cola's or is it a waste? Any science behind it one way or the other? Pros/cons?

The little buds on the bottom usually suck anyway, so I recently started to cut them off. Not so sure that it has made a difference with the top cola's though. Guess I'd rather have the little popcorn on the bottom if all things up top are equal either way, but if it in any way helps the top cola's, then I am all for chopping them off. 

I really respect both of you and would love to hear your thoughts on this.

ty


----------



## DaveCoulier (Jul 10, 2010)

Cissy said:


> Uncle Ben/Brick Top
> 
> What do you two Gentlemen think of "lollipopping"? Is that a bad idea as well? Does cutting off the bottom 1/3, which never gets any light anyway, really force the plant to redirect its energy to the top cola's or is it a waste? Any science behind it one way or the other? Pros/cons?
> 
> ...


There is already a lollipopping thread where UB and BT have made their thoughts known. BrickTop has a great ditty in there that pretty much body slams lollipopping proponents. I think he even does a leg drop on them while they're down too...


----------



## Cissy (Jul 11, 2010)

DaveCoulier said:


> There is already a lollipopping thread where UB and BT have made their thoughts known. BrickTop has a great ditty in there that pretty much body slams lollipopping proponents. I think he even does a leg drop on them while they're down too...


Great. But do you have a link or a hint so I can look it up? Otherwise, the two of them have thousands of posts and I don't have time to go on a wild goose chase. 

thank you


----------



## riddleme (Jul 11, 2010)

Cissy said:


> Great. But do you have a link or a hint so I can look it up? Otherwise, the two of them have thousands of posts and I don't have time to go on a wild goose chase.
> 
> thank you


I actually just posted it in UB topping thread to show someone elseone of the last pages look for the lollypop guild video and it should be on that page
here it is
https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/151706-uncle-bens-topping-technique-get-248.html#post4368044


----------



## Cissy (Jul 11, 2010)

Thank you.. I spent the last several hours reading that thread and another (this one:https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/244201-lollipopping-3.html) and I am convinced to abandon this whole lollipopin idea. 

One question remains: when doing a 2nd harvest, do you just chop the top half of the plant off and leave nothing but the lower parts to finish or do you leave as many of the top fan leaves on as possible? It would make sense to remove them on one hand, but on the other(based on UB's logic) it might actually be better to leave them on. So not sure which way to go. ?

Also, about how long do you guys have to leave the bottom halves to go before they "mature"? For instance, if I harvest the tops of my favorite strain (White Berry) at 8 weeks, how much longer should I expect to wait on the bottom halves of the plants beyond that time? 

ty


----------



## riddleme (Jul 11, 2010)

Cissy said:


> Thank you.. I spent the last several hours reading that thread and another (this one:https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/244201-lollipopping-3.html) and I am convinced to abandon this whole lollipopin idea.
> 
> One question remains: when doing a 2nd harvest, do you just chop the top half of the plant off and leave nothing but the lower parts to finish or do you leave as many of the top fan leaves on as possible? It would make sense to remove them on one hand, but on the other(based on UB's logic) it might actually be better to leave them on. So not sure which way to go. ?
> 
> ...


I usually run the bottom for another 3 weeks


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 11, 2010)

Cissy said:


> One question remains: when doing a 2nd harvest, do you just chop the top half of the plant off and leave nothing but the lower parts to finish or do you leave as many of the top fan leaves on as possible?


Over 10 years ago I came up with the double harvest ditty and was flamed at boards. Main reason is folks think it's normal to lose all fan leaves close to harvest, I'd point out the problem was their poor culture and the fact they are making excuses for using bloom when they shouldn't. As previously noted in other threads here..... https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/244201-lollipopping-3.html .....find the point where the bulked up cola transitions to airy buds on the main stems, cut there and cure. Take the bottom of the plant and put it back under the lights to bulk up. Back off on the feeding and especially the water. You need to have retained good leaf mass to be successful. If not, best just shit can the plant and not worry about it.

Good luck,
UB


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jul 11, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Over 10 years ago I came up with the double harvest ditty and was flamed at boards.
> Good luck,
> UB


you came up with the double harvest ditty? you sure about that?? I seen it well over 10 years ago, that's for sure...... you gonna take credit for coming up with topping also??


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 11, 2010)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> you came up with the double harvest ditty? you sure about that?? I seen it well over 10 years ago, that's for sure...... you gonna take credit for coming up with topping also??


Priceless + rep


----------



## riddleme (Jul 11, 2010)

UB does not need me to defend him, and there are a lot of folks that disagree with his common sense botanical approach to growing, but he has history and it deserves respect from those looking to learn how to properly grow MJ. He did in fact originate "his" topping method and was one of the persons that helped to write the original faq at the old overgrow site (I have a copy of the faq) he also appears as a guest in Jorges bible, he has been posting in growing forums for over 14 years (though he said 10) 

it is very ok not to like him, or his approach, it is however not ok to disrespect his contribution to the growing community

and once again desert I apologize for stepping on your thread


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 11, 2010)

> it is very ok not to like him, or his approach, it is however not ok to disrespect his contribution to the growing community


Yeah, well I have seen him show disrespect to other growers too. Specifically growers that try new methods. If he did actually develop the topping technique? (Do you seriously believe this technique is only less than 20 years old? Started in 1990 sometime?) then he should be more understanding and supportive of other growers that try new things.


----------



## Gr33nCrack (Jul 11, 2010)

I also said fuck lolli popping this year. It seems like you waste so much growth cutting the bottom branches, i don't see how you get a better yield. Personally i Topped, Super Cropped and LSTed my plant so it gets 100% light, I only cut the very bottom branches and saved the other 4, guarantee this yields more than just topping and lolli popping View attachment 1038701


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jul 11, 2010)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> you came up with the double harvest ditty? you sure about that?? I seen it well over 10 years ago, that's for sure...... you gonna take credit for coming up with topping also??





riddleme said:


> UB does not need me to defend him, and there are a lot of folks that disagree with his common sense botanical approach to growing, but he has history and it deserves respect from those looking to learn how to properly grow MJ. He did in fact originate "his" topping method and was one of the persons that helped to write the original faq at the old overgrow site (I have a copy of the faq) he also appears as a guest in Jorges bible, he has been posting in growing forums for over 14 years (though he said 10)
> 
> it is very ok not to like him, or his approach, it is however not ok to disrespect his contribution to the growing community
> 
> and once again desert I apologize for stepping on your thread


are you talking to me? if so, point out the disrespect. ...... 10 or 14 years, 20 yrs if you want it to be, I have never gotten my technique of topping off the internet, surely also not from a guy named uncle Ben.


----------



## riddleme (Jul 11, 2010)

was talking to everyone, why I did not quote anybody


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 11, 2010)

riddleme said:


> was talking to everyone, why I did not quote anybody


Which is probably why everyone is talking back


----------



## desertrat (Jul 11, 2010)

Took me awhile to get back, but here's my response


Brick Top said:


> The point is not what a light puts out in lumens or distance from plants/leaves/buds but instead that of a plant's ability to absorb and process the light it has access to, to create energy. If leaves are removed the ability to absorb and process light to create energy is reduced and nothing will ever change that fact.


 both amount of light delivered and the plant's ability to absorb light are important. To take it to the extreme, you are going to grow Jack shit with 100 lumens total no matter what you do with the fans leaves. 



> It is like having a home that is 100% solar and in an effort to increase the amount of energy the home's solar system can create someone removes their largest most efficient solar panels.


 your use of solar panels as an analogy highlights what you're not understanding about the physics of indoor grows. It doesN't matter where on the roof the panels were because they were all effectively the same distance from the sun. A better analogy is that you are taking apart the solar panels on earth and moving 90% of them to the planet mercury - you are going to have a lot more light absorbed with fewer solar panels. 



> Addition cannot be performed by subtraction. Redirection of energy will occur in plants when topping and or trimming is performed but what is then being redirected is redirected from a lesser total overall amount of energy. There cannot be an overall net gain of energy creation as a result of reducing a plant's ability to absorb light rays and create and store energy.


 formally speaking there is no energy creation at all. But as far as you mean the energy absorbed by the plant, then yes, there can be an increase in the energy absorbed by reducing plant mass - if you are by your actions providing more energy to the plant then the lower plant mass will be outweighed by the greater amount of energy made available for absorption. 



> A plant has a limited ability to absorb and process light regardless of the source of light or distance from the light. Call the total amount of energy a healthy complete/not trimmed plant can absorb and create for growth 'X.' When healthy leaves are removed that reduces the total amount of light able to be collected, processed and available for growth to say 'P.' So now rather than 'X' energy you have 'P' energy. From 'P' a certain amount will be directed to replace the lost healthy foliage leaving what might be called 'K' amount of energy for the remaining portion of a plant to rely on.
> 
> By removing healthy leaves you go from the total amount of energy 'X' to the total amount of energy reduced to 'P' and part of that goes to regain what was removed leaving only 'K' amount of energy for the rest of the plant.
> 
> Where is the true gain of energy supposed to be found in an overall amount that has to have been reduced through loss of collection and processing and storage?


 I really want to thank you for framing the question so well. One small change that's important - instead of taking the whole plant as one system, look at it as multiple collectors of energy at different distances from the light. The total energy absorbed by the plant is the sum of some parts that are getting the maximum amount of light that they can absorb and many other parts of the plant that are receiving much less than the max amount of light. The whole point of this technique is to increase the percentage of the plant that is getting max light delivered to it. The point of the experiment is to see if there is a net gain in plant mass at harvest - and so far the results say yes. There's a lot more testing to be done, especially trying this on clones, but the prelim results have been consistently positive. And unless you want to join the club of one who keeps questioning my ability to run an experiment, then you need to be able to explain my results away with some alternate logic, something no one has done.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 11, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Here's another thread that belongs in the Cannabis Hall of Fame of Quackery
> 
> ...and another:
> 
> ...


See, the insults just keep coming but you continue to fail to address why I'm getting the results I am getting. Oh, that's right, I am a lying, incompetent, attention seeking nube. Or not.



Uncle Ben said:


> I just get rubbed the wrong way when someone fishes for noobie interest in a forum by starting a thread with a dreamie title of "anybody want to double their yields?" as if they've found some new fangled method. Trust me, whatever you do, it's been done before in some form or fashion.


 thanks for the clarity on your point of view - that there is nothing new to learn about cannabis cultivation - Anyone who believes as I do that more will be learned as the years go by please stay tuned. 



> I presented my arguments, pointing out the fallacy that topping above the 4th node and you'll still have a "main branch". That's just not true, only noobs will fall for such crap. What's with the stair step drill, botanically? If removal of some fans is super duper, then it seems to me that removal of all is better. Every time someone starts another one of these boring "remove fan leaves" threads I tell 'em now to remove all of them.


 once again, the main branch would be that thing that's popping out of the ground and continues to the node you topped. Above that there's no main branch. The stair step pattern opens up the plant to expose the tips of the lower branches. And, I hope for the last time, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Your "cut all the fan leaves if cutting a few is good" is really sophomoric. Do you cut off all of your hair because getting a hair trim is a good thing?

Ub, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that your mind is so closed you will never see the benefit of a technique that runs counter to your preconceived notions. That's a shame because you otherwise seem to be pretty talented. I fear you will find as weed becomes more legal and growing becomes less clandestine that there will be an explosion of new knowledge about marijuana cultivation, and some of that new knowledge is going to contradict things you are absolutely convinced of and you will be left behind.


----------



## Gr33nCrack (Jul 11, 2010)

you just shut that hole in your face boy


----------



## Gr33nCrack (Jul 11, 2010)

View attachment 1038915 This is how its done you sissified tweety bird


----------



## crusty420 (Jul 11, 2010)

Well I tried your method Just before the switch to 12/12 with one plant and left one alone. The results are so obvious....The one on the right is the one i pulled about 8 leaves off


----------



## DaveCoulier (Jul 11, 2010)

Your results are not as obvious as you may think..

You also have the reflector mostly positioned over the plant on the right..


----------



## riddleme (Jul 11, 2010)

DaveCoulier said:


> Your results are not as obvious as you may think..
> 
> You also have the reflector mostly positioned over the plant on the right..


Thank you Dave, wanted to say the same thing but have stepped on this thread to much already


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 11, 2010)

DaveCoulier said:


> Your results are not as obvious as you may think..
> 
> You also have the reflector mostly positioned over the plant on the right..


True. Now, if he did another grow with the pruned plant on the left and it still weighed more would you believe it?


----------



## riddleme (Jul 11, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> True. Now, if he did another grow with the pruned plant on the left and it still weighed more would you believe it?


sure, pic is worth a thousand words, and as I said earlier in the thread I am gonna do it to one of my 4 that I just started


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 11, 2010)

riddleme said:


> sure, pic is worth a thousand words, and as I said earlier in the thread I am gonna do it to one of my 4 that I just started


Cool. I am not trying to defend Desert Rat here, I am trying to defend the scientific method ;]


----------



## crusty420 (Jul 11, 2010)

DaveCoulier said:


> Your results are not as obvious as you may think..
> 
> You also have the reflector mostly positioned over the plant on the right..


I see your point. I didn't take that into consideration. I will try it the other way around next time.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 11, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> Cool. I am not trying to defend Desert Rat here, I am trying to defend the scientific method ;]


Me thinks you're trying to grow apples when you should stick to growing oranges.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 12, 2010)

crusty420 said:


> I see your point. I didn't take that into consideration. I will try it the other way around next time.


 Looking forward to some more results. Thanks for trying this out.


----------



## sixstring2112 (Jul 12, 2010)

I would love to see some good pics on the pruning method, stairstep. if you already posted some can you tell me what page they are on.i would do this on a clone just to see for myself.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 13, 2010)

So, I'm:

Fully treated with my best available med,

Dead on my ass from driving over 800 miles in 13 hours

Extremely pissed at ms. Rat,

But is it just possible that there has been some gross miscommunication about this pruning method? I was thinking back to UB's comment about no main branch and went back and re-read my description of the stair-step pruning method and realized some people are probably reading something into what I wrote that was not intended. Anyway, to be more clear, I am talking about cutting only 4 or 5 leaves from any plant. No more. And those leaves are going to be in places on the plant that effectively get no light by the time the plant's flowering.

Doesn't that make this less controversial?


----------



## sixstring2112 (Jul 13, 2010)

I just want to make sure i'm on the same page as you with pruning,if i dont get it right it wont be a fair comparison right?


----------



## Weedoozie (Jul 13, 2010)

desertrat said:


> So, I'm:
> 
> Fully treated with my best available med,
> 
> ...


I agree that this makes more sense and less controversial! Thanks for clearing that up, this way the pruning method you've described could work wonders for those bottom bud sites


----------



## desertrat (Jul 13, 2010)

sixstring2112 said:


> I just want to make sure i'm on the same page as you with pruning,if i dont get it right it wont be a fair comparison right?





sixstring2112 said:


> I would love to see some good pics on the pruning method, stairstep. if you already posted some can you tell me what page they are on.i would do this on a clone just to see for myself.


 took me awhile to put together the diagram:



you cut off one leaf from each node, starting at the bottom and working your way around the plant until you reach the node you topped/fimmed.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 13, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> A leaf will only absorb roughly 15% of the light that strikes it and the remaining roughly 85% passes through to then strike lower leaves so leaves do not actually block as much light as some people believe they do.


 this didn't sound right when posted but it took me awhile to get around to it. sorry, this is another myth. for example, my light meter had 1,750 lumens per square foot next to a leaf and 150 lumens per square foot underneath it. it may very well be true that the chlorophyl only absorbs 15% of light hitting the plant, but almost all of the rest of the light is reflected back or transformed into heat energy and radiated back.


----------



## genuity (Jul 13, 2010)

desertrat said:


> this didn't sound right when posted but it took me awhile to get around to it. sorry, this is another myth. for example, my light meter had 1,750 lumens per square foot next to a leaf and 150 lumens per square foot underneath it. it may very well be true that the chlorophyl only absorbs 15% of light hitting the plant, but almost all of the rest of the light is reflected back or transformed into heat energy and radiated back.


hmmm,got me thinking.


----------



## genuity (Jul 13, 2010)

Chlorophyll _a_ is a large molecule that has a "head" called a porphyrin ring with a magnesium atom at its center. 






ChlorophyllAttached to the porphyrin is a long, insoluble carbon-hydrogen chain which interacts with the proteins of the thylakoids and serves to anchor the molecule in the internal membranes of the chloroplast. Chlorophyll _a_ is the pigment that participates directly in the light requiring reactions of photosynthesis. Chlorophyll _b_ differs from chlorophyll _a_ only in one of the functional groups bonded to the porphyrin (a -CHO group in place of a -CH3 group). It is an accessory pigment and acts indirectly in photosynthesis by transferring the light it absorbs to chlorophyll _a_. Alternating single and double bonds, known as conjugated bonds, such as those in the porphyrin ring of chlorophylls, are common among pigments, and are responsible for the absorption of visible light by these substances. Both chlorophylls _a_ and _b_ primarily absorb red and blue light, the colors most effective in photosynthesis. They reflect or transmit green light, which is why leaves appear green. *The ratio of chlorophyll a to chlorophyll b in the chloroplast is 3:1.*

*if we could only change the ratio 2:2.*


----------



## sixstring2112 (Jul 13, 2010)

desertrat said:


> took me awhile to put together the diagram:
> 
> View attachment 1043113
> 
> you cut off one leaf from each node, starting at the bottom and working your way around the plant until you reach the node you topped/fimmed.


great diagram, that looks simple enough.


----------



## NLXSK1 (Jul 13, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Me thinks you're trying to grow apples when you should stick to growing oranges.


Grow what you want, I am growing Marijuana ;]


----------



## desertrat (Jul 15, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> Grow what you want, I am growing Marijuana ;]


What a co-ink-a-dink, so am I.


----------



## kearners (Jul 15, 2010)

NLXSK1 said:


> Grow what you want, I am growing Marijuana ;]


 +rep for making me laugh


----------



## buzzpopper (Jul 15, 2010)

I have read all 24 pages of this topic. 

I have 30 years of gardening and farming experience (I hate to say that cause it makes you sound like an instant poser). There are only three reason to prune any plant be it cannabis or grapes. Those reasons are plant health, control growth or to increase plant yield. Any other argument about botany is redundant.

To understand the "why" of pruning it is highly important that you learn about terminal buds These are the growth buds at the ends of all branches and by cutting to every other leaf you are redirecting the the hormones or auxins produced within the original terminal bud to the next lower bud which will produce higher auxins and thus produce multiple terminal buds its called survival. Something I have always grinned at when folks came out tooting the horn about topping plants. 

This technic has been used by fruit and flower farmers for years.

What I would like to know is what is you current temp difference between lights on and lights off in veg and flower? 

This is really more important than the plant slowing down after the cutting. Its is going to slow down you just cut to energy source in half and it has to be redirected. A simple ten degrees diff during lights out will make a huge difference in plant yields.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Jul 15, 2010)

buzzpopper said:


> I have read all 24 pages of this topic.
> 
> I have 30 years of gardening and farming experience (I hate to say that cause it makes you sound like an instant poser). There are only three reason to prune any plant be it cannabis or grapes. Those reasons are plant health, control growth or to increase plant yield. Any other argument about botany is redundant.
> 
> ...


Maybe I misread your post, but did you say that removing fan leaves is similar to topping?


----------



## buzzpopper (Jul 16, 2010)

No they are not the same. But in a plant that size. I would think that the lower branching could and would have to occur faster with the hormones being redirected to the remaining fan leaves for no other reason than basic survival genetics taking over in the plant. The overall upward growth would slow due to half of the energy source being removed.


----------



## Cissy (Jul 16, 2010)

buzzpopper said:


> A simple ten degrees diff during lights out will make a huge difference in plant yields.


Please elaborate on this. Why would that be? How? 

I could get my room down to 60 during lights out if I wanted to, but would that be too much? Should I strive for exactly 85 during lights on (using CO2 of course) and 75 when lights are off? Can it be greater than a 10 degree difference?


----------



## desertrat (Jul 16, 2010)

buzzpopper said:


> What I would like to know is what is you current temp difference between lights on and lights off in veg and flower?
> 
> This is really more important than the plant slowing down after the cutting. Its is going to slow down you just cut to energy source in half and it has to be redirected. A simple ten degrees diff during lights out will make a huge difference in plant yields.


Pepole are just not understanding this technique. You are not cutting the energy source in half. You are cutting at most 6 or 7 fan leaves and they have never represented more than 10% of the plant's green mass when I snip. 

If you want to discuss the effect of temperature changes during growing I invite you to join riddleme's recent balls to the wall thread - he is extensively testing this out. I am not.


----------



## bobbyf123 (Jul 16, 2010)

I've not tested this theory but as stated in other reviews I've always had somewhat of a green thumb. And also, quite by accident, I learned this during my first grow ever, many years ago. Anyway it appears to work no matter how many leaves that you cut. I did this naturally so that more of the sun's rays could penetrate to the lower branches, at the bottom of my plant. I always felt that the more sunlight the better, and used this excuse to trim all of the larger "fan leaves". At the time of harvest I had no leaves left on my plant to the point that it was hard to locate in the woods when I needed to water. The end result was plants over 12' tall and by toppping once at 2', I had two main terminal buds that were both too big to place in a gallon size zip lock baggie corner to corner and close the bag. The remainder were small to larger buds of all sizes everywhere. Yeild was over a pound and a half per plant utilizing this method. Almost like getting two plants per container without the root-bound problems. Just got my indoor equipment and thus far I still getting excellent results.

SECRETS TO CONSISTENT GOOD GROWS:
Potting soil, nurients, water, root space, seasonal temperatures, cirrculatings fresh air and good strong light.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Jul 16, 2010)

bobbyf123 said:


> I've not tested this theory but as stated in other reviews I've always had somewhat of a green thumb. And also, quite by accident, I learned this during my first grow ever, many years ago. Anyway it appears to work no matter how many leaves that you cut. I did this naturally so that more of the sun's rays could penetrate to the lower branches, at the bottom of my plant. I always felt that the more sunlight the better, and used this excuse to trim all of the larger "fan leaves". At the time of harvest I had no leaves left on my plant to the point that it was hard to locate in the woods when I needed to water. The end result was plants over 12' tall and by toppping once at 2', I had two main terminal buds that were both too big to place in a gallon size zip lock baggie corner to corner and close the bag. The remainder were small to larger buds of all sizes everywhere. Yeild was over a pound and a half per plant utilizing this method. Almost like getting two plants per container without the root-bound problems. Just got my indoor equipment and thus far I still getting excellent results.
> 
> SECRETS TO CONSISTENT GOOD GROWS:
> Potting soil, nurients, water, root space, seasonal temperatures, cirrculatings fresh air and good strong light.


I guarantee you would have more yield if you hadn't removed all your fan leaves. If the breeder Tom Hill can pull 5lbs.+ with his low yielding Deep Chunk outdoors, then you should have produced a whole lot more than 1.5 lbs. Its sounds like alot, but in Cali they grow monsters and they dont remove the fan leaves.

Trying to get more light to the lower branches is just a waste. They are the last to flower, yet you want to remove so much of the resources the upper bud sites depend on. 

The earths rotation solves the problem of getting light to the lower branches. No need to remove everything above it to accomplish this goal.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 16, 2010)

DaveCoulier said:


> I guarantee you would have more yield if you hadn't removed all your fan leaves. If the breeder Tom Hill can pull 5lbs.+ with his low yielding Deep Chunk outdoors, then you should have produced a whole lot more than 1.5 lbs. Its sounds like alot, but in Cali they grow monsters and they dont remove the fan leaves.
> 
> Trying to get more light to the lower branches is just a waste. They are the last to flower, yet you want to remove so much of the resources the upper bud sites depend on.
> 
> The earths rotation solves the problem of getting light to the lower branches. No need to remove everything above it to accomplish this goal.


 Pruning makes more sense in indoor environments where the light is a static point source compared to outdoors.


----------



## buzzpopper (Jul 16, 2010)

Cissy said:


> Please elaborate on this. Why would that be? How?
> 
> I could get my room down to 60 during lights out if I wanted to, but would that be too much? Should I strive for exactly 85 during lights on (using CO2 of course) and 75 when lights are off? Can it be greater than a 10 degree difference?


All depends on the plant optimum temp for converting energy to growth. This would vary from plant and strain due to genetics.


----------



## buzzpopper (Jul 16, 2010)

desertrat said:


> i cannot claim original ownership of this idea - it was in the old growfaq - but since i don't think anyone uses it anymore, i'm gonna jack it for myself. it won't double the yield of someone already using advanced growing techniques but it is an easy way to improve on basic growing techniques.
> 
> *anyway, here are the basics
> 1. either top or fim the main branch after the 4th node
> 2. on the main branch only, prune every other fan leaf in a staircase pattern. this slows the growth of the main stem and for some reason stimulates the growth of secondary branches.*


Perhaps this statement is what is causing the confusion. I read this as the plant having 8 fan leaves and you have removed 4 and the topped the main terminal bud. This would in turn stunt the growth and cause the plant to shoot out side branches at the locations the leaves were left on.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 16, 2010)

buzzpopper said:


> Perhaps this statement is what is causing the confusion. I read this as the plant having 8 fan leaves and you have removed 4 and the topped the main terminal bud. This would in turn stunt the growth and cause the plant to shoot out side branches at the locations the leaves were left on.


 You read correctly. Probably my confusion earlier as I'm fully medicated. Never seems to be much foliage but I suppose more than ten percent.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 17, 2010)

DaveCoulier said:


> I guarantee you would have more yield if you hadn't removed all your fan leaves. If the breeder Tom Hill can pull 5lbs.+ with his low yielding Deep Chunk outdoors, then you should have produced a whole lot more than 1.5 lbs. Its sounds like alot, but in Cali they grow monsters and they dont remove the fan leaves.
> 
> Trying to get more light to the lower branches is just a waste.


Yep, it's another one of those paradigms that was generated and then parroted by new growers who do not understand botany and horticulture, as I explained in a previous post regarding the general lack of effective leaf material at the bud sites. You're not trying to color up an apple or peach people. Sheesh! 

Just a side note that may throw a clinker into the mix. It is a fact, measured by CO2 processing, that older (first ones to mature) grape leaves do not produce the amount of carbos that newly matured leaves do. IOW, they are not as efficient nor effective. The same botanical fact MAY apply to cannabis.

UB


----------



## DaveCoulier (Jul 17, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Yep, it's another one of those paradigms that was generated and then parroted by new growers who do not understand botany and horticulture, as I explained in a previous post regarding the general lack of effective leaf material at the bud sites. You're not trying to color up an apple or peach people. Sheesh!
> 
> Just a side note that may throw a clinker into the mix. It is a fact, measured by CO2 processing, that older (first ones to mature) grape leaves do not produce the amount of carbos that newly matured leaves do. IOW, they are not as efficient nor effective. The same botanical fact MAY apply to cannabis.
> 
> UB


That last part is interesting. Ill have to ask my buddy to do some research on that. He has access to large databases of scholarly articles, etc thanks to his school. He loves reading and researching. If he ever gets a break Ill see what he can dig up.


----------



## buzzpopper (Jul 17, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Considering grapes are perennial may account for the mature leaves cutting back on production with the onset of dormancy, though I will not be cutting my mature leaves in an effort to produce juicier grapes. With cannabis being an annual or for all annuals for that matter the mature leaves would I would think still be producing at peak levels due to the life cycle and reproduction genetics within the plant. Absolutely fascinating conundrum.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 17, 2010)

buzzpopper said:


> Considering grapes are perennial may account for the mature leaves cutting back on production with the onset of dormancy, though I will not be cutting my mature leaves in an effort to produce juicier grapes. With cannabis being an annual or for all annuals for that matter the mature leaves would I would think still be producing at peak levels due to the life cycle and reproduction genetics within the plant. Absolutely fascinating conundrum.


 Physics still trumps biology in indoor grows. In most grow cases the most mature fan leaves are not getting meaningful enough amounts of light to photosynthesize. See my new myth busters thread for detail.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 18, 2010)

Topping and pruning - 61 grams dried
Topping only - 53 grams dried

Topping and pruning wins by 15%, much less than double but that's explained in my new myth busters - light thread as being due to the naturally short stature of lowryders.

Can't continue these tests in my grow room for another month or so, when I'm going to try Clones and some new strains, so for now I'll just settle for another top and prune victory.

Can't wait for doubters' next attack on my integrity but I'll just keep smoking the stuff they believe I can't produce.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 18, 2010)

desertrat said:


> Physics still trumps biology in indoor grows.


Not in my gardens it doesn't. It's a balancing act.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 18, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Not in my gardens it doesn't. It's a balancing act.


Trumps - To get the better of (an adversary or competitor, for example) by using a crucial, often hidden resource.

It's a balance that's skewed toward physics because of the inferior light available indoors. Thats why yields were calculated in amount per watt of light, because every grower knew he could win a contest just by adding light.


----------



## OZUT (Jul 22, 2010)

Here's what I don't understand and this isn't directed to towards anyone but if you don't agree with someone or their method, what compels you to constantly and continuously make the same argument against it or dedicate all this time to try and prove that person wrong knowing that you're not going to be able to? Say what you gotta say once, twice, three times and move on? If you're doing it with the best interest of the people are just starting out thinking they might try it, just know that when they read through any given thread they'll probably come across your argument and will decide for themselves what to do....Here's a guy that tried to contribute something for the betterment of the community and it's turned into a 256 post (so far) thread, with most of the posts serving no purpose but restating something that has previously been posted...I'll guarantee a shit load of people probably started reading this thread but after a few pages, decided to abandon it...so those that feel compelled to beat a dead horse thinking you're helping out the ones that are just starting, know that you're doing the exact opposite...If someone tries something and it doesn't work for them then that's just another experience for that person

That being said, I grow and always top half my plants using UB's technique and I FIM the other half, on top of that, I supercrop all of them up to 10 days before flipping my lights....When I go into bloom, I first remove all growth from the bottom 1/3 of my plants and I will go through all of them and pluck 25% of the fan leaves, especially the ones covering the center of my canopy...I've had grows where I didn't do that and I was not happy with my yield....everything below the canopy was completely blocked from getting light and the buds were not what I wanted...I run (4) 600's and flower between 28-37 plants per cycle and I average 3-4 1/2 ounces per plant...Agree with my method or not, I'm more than satisfied with my grows and am always looking into ways to improve....Fuck the physics argument and fuck the biology argument, show me proof of what you claim...Desertrat has done that and I would probably try it out on 1 of my plants in my next cycle but I don't think the difference would be much because it's almost like what I do now...UB's technique is always used in my grows but not exclusively because my experience has shown ME that their are more things that can be done...

Now go ahead and dissect my post to your hearts content


----------



## OZUT (Jul 22, 2010)

Oh yeah, for those that constantly go back to the nature argument and how nature put the fan leaves there for a reason and bla bla bla, understand that by bringing that plant indoors and trying to duplicate outdoor conditions you're already disturbing the natural process and certain things may need to be tweaked, such as opening up the canopy by plucking some fan leaves or by trimming the bottom 1/3rd of the plant because it's not going to fully develop because of lack of light energy from your unnatural sun.


----------



## Hotwired (Jul 22, 2010)

You tell 'em OZUT


----------



## desertrat (Jul 22, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Desertrat has done that and I would probably try it out on 1 of my plants in my next cycle but I don't think the difference would be much because it's almost like what I do now


Yes, I wouldn't expect you to get much benefit but I'm always interested in more data if you ever want to run a comparison. The one thing I'll pass along that I've learned is to try and keep the plant canopy at the same distance from the bulb instead of the same distance from the ground.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 22, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Oh yeah, for those that constantly go back to the nature argument and how nature put the fan leaves there for a reason and bla bla bla, understand that by bringing that plant indoors and trying to duplicate outdoor conditions you're already disturbing the natural process and certain things may need to be tweaked, such as opening up the canopy by plucking some fan leaves or by trimming the bottom 1/3rd of the plant because it's not going to fully develop because of lack of light energy from your unnatural sun.


Spoken like a true noob.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 22, 2010)

desertrat said:


> Trumps - To get the better of (an adversary or competitor, for example) by using a crucial, often hidden resource.
> 
> It's a balance that's skewed toward physics because of the inferior light available indoors. Thats why yields were calculated in amount per watt of light, because every grower knew he could win a contest just by adding light.


Watt per light? There is no lamp system that gives a constant watt per lamp, too many factors regarding lamps, hoods, etc. It's what the plant receives that counts, which no one but a handful measures in stonerville. 

Grams per watt is the most ludicrous crap that ever came out of cannabis forums suitable for unsophisticated noobs. Sad, but it's typical. Adding light DOES NOT GUARANTEE more yield. That's just fuckin' stupid.

UB


----------



## desertrat (Jul 22, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Blah blah blah....blah blah ..blah
> UB


15% better yield for top and prune over top only for lowryders, repeated experiments with larger plants had twice the yield.QED


----------



## OZUT (Jul 22, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Spoken like a true noob.


Really? That's all you could come up with? Are you now expecting a response like "I know you are but what am I?" 

I got better things to do than go at it with you on here man...I'll let you get into an elementary argument with someone else and and you can post random shit so you can hit the 3,000 posts mark soon...


----------



## Hotwired (Jul 22, 2010)

UB likes to come into this thread and insult people. But when you go to his thread and voice your opinion you get flamed/banned. But he got mod support so it's all good.

It's ok tho. Potroast has been after my ass for a while. He finally got to play god for a minute when he told me to take a vacation. Like I couldn't come here to post under another name or something. I let him get his kicks so he has some satisfaction in his life. I didn't want to take away the small things that make him happy.

Kind of reminds me when UB comes into your thread calling everyone "noobs". He get's to play god for a minute and then runs for cover under his keyboard. He gets no points on his account for "insulting other members". That's cause he's so cool and all and everyone should be just - like - him.

I'll have to go back to insulting people using intelligent words instead of naughty ones. It seems to confuse them and they get disorientated.


----------



## Hotwired (Jul 22, 2010)

OZUT said:


> Really? That's all you could come up with? Are you now expecting a response like "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I got better things to do than go at it with you on here man...I'll let you get into an elementary argument with someone else and and you can post random shit so you can hit the 3,000 posts mark soon...


Good reply OZUT. Let me handle him. He's too EZ


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 23, 2010)

It's all about botany fellas. Leave the politics and noobie paradigms which have been parroted with each new noobie crop out of it. 

I wish I had a dime for every "fishing for attention" thread I've seen started over my 10 years of posting/teaching at over 7 cannabis forums that begin with something like "wanna triple your yields!!!!!!!!"....."how to grow the biggest buds!!!!!!!".....as the thread starter proceeds to come up with every stupid gimmick or suck ass product in the world while dismissing the only thing that counts in productivity - horticulture and common sense. 

Good example, years ago there was the grams/watt thingie that just won't die. 100 watts/s.f. was "kewl" as the cool kids talked it up good. I sat there and laughed as I watched their buds turn into what looked like half starved canaries perched on a stick. Yet another farce, totally not related to bud production because it's treated as a black and white issue, the lazy man's approach, as opposed to focusing one's attention on actual light received by the plant's leaves which is driven by the lamp output, hood configuration/design, efficiency of hood reflective material, distance between the bulk of the leafsets and the hood, leaf health, leaf chlorophyll content, etc. 

Now, you wanna believe that yanking off the very unit that produces bud increases yield? Fine. I've got some seashore property in Arizona I'll sell you.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 23, 2010)

*OK, I'll bite and slap another hand*.



OZUT said:


> Oh yeah, for those that constantly go back to the nature argument and how nature put the fan leaves there for a reason and bla bla bla, understand that by bringing that plant indoors and trying to duplicate outdoor conditions you're already disturbing the natural process...


You're not disturbing a thing, that is if you're successfully replicating natural plant processes like you should be doing. Do you understand what a photon is and how and why the leaf collects them? Plant doesn't care if the photons come from the sun or a lamp. Your argument is about as ill founded as the old "you need to have MH for vegetation and HPS for flowering." Speaking of gimmicks..... I've grown better pot using a regular HPS exclusively from start to finish than most falling for (and using) the lamp switch-a-roo drill, conversion lamps or "enhanced" lamps that vendors like but plants could care less about. 



> ..... and certain things may need to be tweaked, such as opening up the canopy by plucking some fan leaves or by trimming the bottom 1/3rd of the plant because it's not going to fully develop because of lack of light energy from your unnatural sun.


Certain things don't need to be tweaked, naturally grown is best. You can play games with the plant by opening up the canopy or training, but you best understand plant processes (photosynthesis, hormonal responses) before you do. I never plucked leaves and my yields are always high. Then again, I know how to tweak all factors that go into the final equation - temps, watering, nutrition, light, diurnal temp swing, air movement, etc.

The bottom doesn't fully develop because it's the last to produce and mature and by that time this annual's life is pretty much done with. This plant response is a result of a natural process called apical dominance, a hormonal response found in ALL plant material whether it be cannabis, peach tree, pecan, or tomato plant. The top of any perennial or annual is gonna get most of "the goodies" all the time, every time. That's just what nature does.

I can get another ounce or so out of the bottom of an indoor grown plant by harvesting the bulked up colas and then putting the plant back under the lights for a while. You gotta have healthy leaves left on the plant to pull it off, duh. In the typical garden that won't work thanks to another ill founded noobie paradigm that "it's normal for a plant to lose all of its fan leaves by harvest"......as some ignoramous uses foods that induce leaf drop or just don't know what they are doing other than following crap advice in cannabis forums.

Hope this addresses your question, for about the hundredth time.

UB


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jul 23, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> OK, I'll bite and slap another hand
> 
> 
> ...In the typical garden that won't work thanks to another ill founded noobie paradigm that "it's normal for a plant to lose all of its fan leaves by harvest"......as they use foods that induce leaf drop or just don't know what they are doing other than following crap advice in cannabis forums.
> ...


That's new to me and I'd like to know more, do you have a thread posted with relevant info? If not, could you start one?


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 23, 2010)

Hotwired said:


> Good reply OZUT. Let me handle him. He's too EZ


Bring it on smartass.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 23, 2010)

Miss MeanWeed said:


> That's new to me and I'd like to know more, do you have a thread posted with relevant info? If not, could you start one?


I see you didn't use the Search feature. Assuming it works, click on my name and pull up my threads. Here's one: 
https://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-plant-problems/158144-never-ending-abuse-phosphorous-bloom.html

Look at the avatar in post #5 in that thread - there's a perfect example of a grower's failure to retain healthy leaves until harvest which resulted in sub-par yields and marginal plant health. 

UB


----------



## desertrat (Jul 23, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> Bring it on smartass.


 I know, why don't you go haunt someone else's thread. Maybe they're interested in hearing from the ghost of growers' past, i no longer think you have anything to add of value that couldn't be read in a book. People coming to this thread are interested in how to double their yield above your methods and you just can't help them with that, can you?


----------



## OZUT (Jul 23, 2010)

Hope this addresses your question, for about the hundredth time.

UB[/QUOTE]


I never asked you a question for you to address it, let alone for the hundredth time


----------



## OZUT (Jul 23, 2010)

desertrat said:


> I know, why don't you go haunt someone else's thread. Maybe they're interested in hearing from the ghost of growers' past, i no longer think you have anything to add of value that couldn't be read in a book. People coming to this thread are interested in how to double their yield above your methods and you just can't help them with that, can you?


I was just going to say that. I honestly had respect for the guy and his ideas. I still appreciate some of the advice he's put out there but now he's just coming across as a condensending ass that's trying to live in his past light where he was able to contribute something meaningful and people looked up to him. He's now at a point where he's contributed just about all that he has and can't accept the fact that there are other methods that other people are coming up with that give proven results and he's not getting the attention that he used to. He calls other people Attention whores but he's the biggest one. At least people start their own thread and put their thoughts out there. He just goes around jacking everyone elses.

Instead of putting his experience to use and doing something productive like try to push the limits of a grow, he guards his shit with an iron fist and goes on the attack of anyone that puts something out there. Take a look at post 271. Reminds me of those 80 year old cunt teachers in school. Either help the guy out or don't. There's absolutely no reason to be a dick about it. If answering the guys question is that much of a nuisance and trouble for you then ignore it but don't be such a prick.

Reminds me of the teacher in Pink Floyd's video...Go to 1:10 in the video and tell me that's not UB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df8MikZx6w4



3:30 is what this discussion would be like if they made a music video out of it
Not cool UB, not cool


----------



## Unclepauly (Jul 23, 2010)

haha you guys are giving it to ole UB


----------



## desertrat (Jul 23, 2010)

I genuinely feel sorry for UB as he clearly has some talent but has a mind that's completely closed. He actually believes there is nothing important left to be learned about marijuana cultivation so any discussion of new techniques hits a dead end. Every day he makes himself less relevant, and that is kinda sad.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 23, 2010)

desertrat said:


> I genuinely feel sorry for UB as he clearly has some talent but has a mind that's completely closed. He actually believes there is nothing important left to be learned about marijuana cultivation so any discussion of new techniques hits a dead end. Every day he makes himself less relevant, and that is kinda sad.


Relevant? What is that crap? I don't care if you consider me relevant or not. You're a poser who doesn't have a real leg to stand on.

Now, be a good noob and refute my botanical positions as opposed to drumming up yet another childish UB gangbang using a handful of teenie bopper noobs to support your ill founded "double your yields" butchering-your-plants drill.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 23, 2010)

desertrat said:


> I know, why don't you go haunt someone else's thread.


FYI, for the benefit of the noobie community, you and your lame thread are in my gun sights.

Only when you and yours learn what makes a plant tick will I back down.

UB


----------



## desertrat (Jul 23, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> FYI, for the benefit of the noobie community, you and your lame thread are in my gun sights.
> 
> Only when you and yours learn what makes a plant tick will I back down.
> 
> UB


 Can't wait for a repetition of the same discredited, sophomoric attacks, either directly or via surrogates if you so choose. So far as your contributions help make my threads more accurate I welcome each and every correction and will credit them appropriately.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jul 23, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> FYI, for the benefit of the noobie community, you and your lame thread are in my gun sights.
> 
> Only when you and yours learn what makes a plant tick will I back down.
> 
> UB


there is one other way.


----------



## OZUT (Jul 23, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> there is one other way.


----------



## Hotwired (Jul 23, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> there is one other way.


----------



## desertrat (Jul 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> there is one other way.


 Personally, I'm going to medicate and appreciate the finer things in the universe, and perhaps in the light of a new day minds will be opened to new ideas.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 24, 2010)

desertrat said:


> .....and perhaps in the light of a new day minds will be opened to new ideas.


Sorry, but ya'll can embrace your theories all day long, seen it a million times in countless forums, but you can't change botany, basic plant culture. It is what it is.

There are no "new ideas", just gimmicks from noobs who think they can reinvent the wheel. Like I said, the only way you _may_ be able to receive any real world benefit by removing foliage is IF that foliar mass you removed is subsequently replaced by *equal or more* foliar mass. To think otherwise is showing your ignorance and lack of experience.

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you top as high as you recommended in the first post that the plant will no longer have a "main branch". You have removed apical dominance found in a typical terminal leader. Research hormonal processes and how they drive growth (as well as drive dormancy and other plant processes).

UB


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jul 24, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> I see you didn't use the Search feature. Assuming it works, click on my name and pull up my threads. Here's one:
> https://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-plant-problems/158144-never-ending-abuse-phosphorous-bloom.html
> 
> Look at the avatar in post #5 in that thread - there's a perfect example of a grower's failure to retain healthy leaves until harvest which resulted in sub-par yields and marginal plant health.
> ...



The search feature doesn't seem to like me here, or perhaps I ask it the wrong questions. I checked your thread listings but really I didn't know what specifically to look for. Thanks for the directions.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Jul 24, 2010)

Miss MeanWeed said:


> The search feature doesn't seem to like me here, or perhaps I ask it the wrong questions. I checked your thread listings but really I didn't know what specifically to look for. Thanks for the directions.


Funny, but I couldn't pull up any UB thread links. Now you know why I put in that caveat to you! This isn't the well designed website it used to be. The "new and improved" version really sucks. I did link you to a thread that should have answered your questions regarding the importance of leaves and foods that would support foliage.

UB


----------



## desertrat (Jul 24, 2010)

Uncle Ben said:


> blah blah blah...blah..blah...blah blah............
> 
> UB


15% better yield for top and prune over top only for lowryders, repeated experiments with larger plants had twice the yield compared to your suggested method.QED


----------



## LBCengineer (Aug 13, 2010)

well i just read the latter half of this thread and i can honestly say i did not learn one god damn thing! I feel like I am reading a script from _Days Of Our Lives _or something. 

that's okay b/c i didn't come here with questions (good thing!), just to see what you all are saying. 

it's sad that after all this bitching and whining, if someone actually had questions they would have to sift through all this B.S. to find answers. what a pain in the butt. 

thanks for the entertainment though!


----------



## Howard Stern (Aug 13, 2010)

Uncle Ben, Why the fuck do you care so much what desertrat does with his plants? I am going to do a side by side with this and I am also going to try out LST on my next grow. You both have really nice grows and you both are experianced growers! But you guys are lowering yourselves in my opinion. Why not just agree to disagree, and maybe there is more than one way to skin a cat. Either way nobody is making you grow "their way" so grow big and be happy!


----------



## sguardians2 (Sep 5, 2010)

Howard Stern said:


> Uncle Ben, Why the fuck do you care so much what desertrat does with his plants? I am going to do a side by side with this and I am also going to try out LST on my next grow. You both have really nice grows and you both are experianced growers! But you guys are lowering yourselves in my opinion. Why not just agree to disagree, and maybe there is more than one way to skin a cat. Either way nobody is making you grow "their way" so grow big and be happy!


Thank you!


----------



## quitbichyn (Nov 4, 2010)

Sbscribed!!


----------



## OZUT (Nov 4, 2010)

quitbichyn said:


> Sbscribed!!



Subscribed to what? This thread has been dead for 2 months now


----------



## bdonson (Nov 5, 2010)

Hi UB another childish UB gangbang Ha Ha that's really fresh. I am still involved in finding new ways to screw up a grow. Fortunately I have a good memory so I try to make mistakes only once. First one I ever made was removing fan leaves on one of my first 2 plants I grew. I remember it well, difficult to cut off the first one but after that I removed about half of them. I left the 2nd plant alone. two plants side by side . I'm no physicist and it's been a long time since my crop science days but I wil never for any reason remove a perfectly healthy fan leaf again. just my own personal observation but my second mistake was nute burn. 2 plants about 28 inches tall, 1 with half of the fan leaves removed. The plant I defoliated never recovered and I ended up destroying it. The other recovered and I had a pretty good harvest. Cheers


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 6, 2010)

bdonson said:


> Hi UB another childish UB gangbang Ha Ha that's really fresh. I am still involved in finding new ways to screw up a grow. Fortunately I have a good memory so I try to make mistakes only once. First one I ever made was removing fan leaves on one of my first 2 plants I grew. I remember it well, difficult to cut off the first one but after that I removed about half of them. I left the 2nd plant alone. two plants side by side . I'm no physicist and it's been a long time since my crop science days but I wil never for any reason remove a perfectly healthy fan leaf again. just my own personal observation but my second mistake was nute burn. 2 plants about 28 inches tall, 1 with half of the fan leaves removed. The plant I defoliated never recovered and I ended up destroying it. The other recovered and I had a pretty good harvest. Cheers


Yep, lessons hard learned!

Cheers.....


----------



## gangas canner (Nov 7, 2010)

I've had great success with simply pinching one top pnce plant is about 10 inches, letting the 2 tops grow about 4 inches, then pinching the 2 tops and thus getting 4 tops. I then wait anout 8-10 days, then flip to flower. 

1.5 to 2 lbs per light in 2 gallon posts, 16 pots per light.


----------



## Drr (Jul 3, 2011)

I didn't wanna jump in this but.. like my unlce ben said when you cut off the leaves.. the branch at that node replaces it.

and the other thing is that your opening the canopy for light to penetrate the lower nodes and they take off towards the light.. while topping it make the plant concentrate on those lower nodes... 

Now what you've done here is gone from 1/2 to a full yield...

you doubled YOUR YIELD...


----------



## researchkitty (Jul 3, 2011)

Thanks for adding so much information a year after the thread was over, Drr.  Without your post, who knows what we would have though?


----------



## C.Indica (Jul 3, 2011)

If you must cut off fan leaves, it's best to cut them when they are as small as possible. This will avoid as much energy loss at once, and shift full attention to the branch at that node.
If you cut off large fan leaves, this will stunt the plant and waste a lot of energy on the leaf.


----------



## Gratewhitehunter (Sep 20, 2011)

Awesome information 

Thanks for the information I have been doing this same thing all the way through the growth it works awesome...







desertrat said:


> i cannot claim original ownership of this idea - it was in the old growfaq - but since i don't think anyone uses it anymore, i'm gonna jack it for myself. it won't double the yield of someone already using advanced growing techniques but it is an easy way to improve on basic growing techniques.
> 
> anyway, here are the basics
> 1. either top or fim the main branch after the 4th node
> ...


----------



## flyingtime (Feb 19, 2013)

I went through this thread last night and this morning I woke up and took all 6 of my plants (all in 4th wk of veg), I fimmed and made a spiral staircase of my fan leaves...I went for it 100% on all 6.

Why? Well, I am not expecting to double my yields..not at all. What I am looking for is to slow down the top growth and getting wider girths. I am sure that with training and pinching, etc all of this is achievable too but I just didn't feel like it.

So, will post some before and after pictures and see what the outcome is. BTW, the six ladies are :

2 x C99 (Joey Weed..still have about 30+ beans I bought 3 years ago..kept in a small constant climate chamber. I dropped 2 and both germinated..and fast too )
2 x CSSH (Delicious)
1 x Utopia Haze (Barneys)
1 x Amnesia Haze (Soma)

Will take some pics as time goes by and post them.


----------



## Confusedone (Jun 24, 2013)

Well from that third and all pics actually I would never take your advice! What the F is that crap in the bottom pic??? Looks screwed to the max... I would toss it if it were in my ladies but my ladies never are that sickly when in bloom or they are cut and tossed as I said.. Not working pal.





desertrat said:


> i cannot claim original ownership of this idea - it was in the old growfaq - but since i don't think anyone uses it anymore, i'm gonna jack it for myself. it won't double the yield of someone already using advanced growing techniques but it is an easy way to improve on basic growing techniques.
> 
> anyway, here are the basics
> 1. either top or fim the main branch after the 4th node
> ...


----------



## Malevolence (Jun 28, 2013)

Nothing is more pathetic than an old tired blind dog that can't learn anything new. I have never done this, but I think the point is when you take a fan leaf you get a new top that will bud. Fan leaves don't bud... yea, the plant just replaces the old fan leaf, but not with another fan leaf... with a little node that will grow into a top. Not only that, it should also bush out the lower nodes a bit. So in that case, you are replacing an energy producing solar panel with bud sites. 

I have to say I've never noticed this happening when I have removed leaves before, but I've never really been watching for it either. Another benefit would be slowing the growth of whatever stalk you're pruning which will let shorter faster growing tops catch up. After reading a bunch of bullshit, it would seem canopy control is something that completely blows over the heads of old outdoor dogs. 

Also, no one should be worried about what advice noobs are getting in the Advanced section. I was under the impression this section was for advanced theoretic topics and experiments; there is a section for noobs. Shitting all over a legitimate attempt at controlled experimentation because you knee-jerk reject anything not in a high school science book from the 70s is fuckin retarded at best.

I don't have the time and space for experimenting with shit right now... but from the pictures and the theory behind it, I would think this is plausible and more people should try it on one or two plants... and the most important part, reporting back with the results which only 2 people have done.


----------

