shocking plant 30 min before harvest?

Yeah, I hear you, Brick Top. I had several questions about this too. I have never tried it for some of the reasons you mentioned. But, this truly was discussed in a grower's handbook first published in the seventies, maybe dating back to the sixties. I've always wondered if anyone had actually tried it with any degree of success, as counter-intuitive as it seems. Can't say why I never sacrificed one bud to satisfy my curiosity (probably because it does seem a bit absurd), but I haven't, and I keep fishing for someone to tell me they tried it so I can put the issue to bed.

I'm glad you challenged the idea so I could add this disclaimer. But, it's an honest question and whether or not it's a ridiclous technique, it's not ridiculous to question. I think I've still got the book somewhere in storage, but I can't put my hands on it at the moment to cite specifically, but I'm not making this up. I remember the book mentioning how plants use resin for protection against the sun and other physical stressors. It suggested the technique particularly for low light, and/or cooler grows...where fluffy buds and low resin was a problem. It said to gently crimp them over slightly, not turn them back on themselves, so I guess (in theory) the phloem can still transport resin in the direction of the injury.

from wiki- The Pressure flow hypothesis was a hypothesis proposed by Ernst Munch in 1930 that explained the mechanism of phloem translocation[2]. A high concentration of organic substance inside cells of the phloem at a source, such as a leaf, creates a diffusion gradient that draws water into the cells. Movement occurs by bulk flow; phloem sap moves from sugar sources to sugar sinks by means of turgor pressure gradient. A sugar source is any part of the plant that is producing or releasing sugar.

During the plant's growth period, usually during the spring, storage organs such as the roots are sugar sources, and the plant's many growing areas are sugar sinks. The movement in phloem is multidirectional, whereas, in xylem cells, it is unidirectional (upward).

After the growth period, when the meristems are dormant, the leaves are sources, and storage organs are sinks. Developing seed-bearing organs (such as fruit) are always sinks. Because of this multi-directional flow, coupled with the fact that sap cannot move with ease between adjacent sieve-tubes, it is not unusual for sap in adjacent sieve-tubes to be flowing in opposite directions...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nocturnal1- If you do try it, please let me know how it goes.

Japanfreak said:

I've seen people debate this subject a bunch of times, but never anybody who has actually done it. You'd think that if somebody really wanted to prove something one way or the other they would just do it.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me where you saw this debated?

A high concentration of organic substance inside cells of the phloem at a source, such as a leaf, creates a diffusion gradient that draws water into the cells. Movement occurs by bulk flow; phloem sap moves from sugar sources to sugar sinks by means of turgor pressure gradient.

Click to expand...

The underlined portion is where I see a breakdown in the belief or theory, and something I somewhat previously explained.

Transpiration and turgor pressure are connected in that one, transpiration, effects the degree of turgor pressure. It is transpirational pull that is responsible for the regulation of turgor pressure and that is what moves the sugar sources to sugar sinks. When you crimp or constrict a stem or branch it will reduce transpiration efficiency which will reduce the efficiency of the turgor pressure which causes the relocation of sugar sources to sugar sinks .... there is a loss, a reduction of turgor pressure resulting in less efficient relocation of sugars from sources to sinks.

Bulk flow of moisture and nutrients are driven by negative pressure (transpirational pull) in the xylem. Phloem and xylem are complex tissues that perform transportation of food and water in a plant. They are the vascular tissues of the plant and together form vascular bundles. They work together as a unit to bring about effective transportation of food, nutrients, minerals and water, through what is called transpirational pull. This negative pressure draws water and nutrients out of the xylem and phloem.

If something is done to limit/reduce the negative pressure, reducing the transpirational pull, the effectiveness/efficiency of the transportation of foods, nutrients, minerals and water through the xylem and phloem is reduced and the result will be less foods, nutrients, minerals reaching the buds, not more.

So will there be an increase or a decrease in the amount of foods, nutrients, minerals and water to the buds by crimping the stems under them?

Under assault, who know? Not me.

Brick Top said:

You mean like the people who believed if they strapped things the shape of wings to their arms and leaped off of a really high cliff and flapped their arms really fast they would be able to fly tried doing, right?

Click to expand...

You haven't tried it so you're opinion doesn't mean much to me, sorry. I value experience more than people trying to shoot holes in other people's experience. Now people used to do this, and they claim there was a difference. That's enough for me to keep an open mind. You know it seems like a person who prides yourself on your experience, it's a shame that you decide to give opinions on things you have no experience with, but many on pot boards are the same.

Somebody above asked where I had seen the debate before; on OG and PG and a bit at icmag.

Japanfreak said:

You haven't tried it so you're opinion doesn't mean much to me, sorry.

Click to expand...

That is very typical of someone totally lacking in factual botanical knowledge. Factual reasons why it will not work have been given but you refuse to accept fact and prefer to believe an attempt would prove more. I suppose if it is tried, and there is no scientific research performed to learn if it was a true success or not, but the person says it worked from then on you will swear it works wonders.

If you understood what was written you would not have bothered to reply the way you did.

Since you are into experimentation and experience why not just try using a blow torch on your plants for five minutes before harvesting them? That might shock them really well and turn them into wunder-pot. I'm sure no one has tried that one yet so you might as well be the first to see if it works.


Additional: You said; "You know it seems like a person who prides yourself on your experience, it's a shame that you decide to give opinions on things you have no experience with,"To begin with scientifically proven facts are not opinions and will never become opinions no matter how many times you claim them to be or how hard you attempt to make others believe them to be. The factual reasons why it would not work were given, several times, in different forms and in differing degrees of factual detail.

Next, when scientifically proven fact dictates that some lamebrain experiment is doomed to complete, utter, absolute, total, unmitigated, dismal failure only someone who is insane would attempt it and expect their results to be anything other than complete, utter, absolute, total, unmitigated, dismal failure.

Brick Top said:

That is very typical of someone totally lacking in factual botanical knowledge. Factual reasons why it will not work have been given but you refuse to accept fact and prefer to believe an attempt would prove more. I suppose if it is tried, and there is no scientific research performed to learn if it was a true success or not, but the person says it worked from then on you will swear it works wonders.

If you understood what was written you would not have bothered to reply the way you did.

Since you are into experimentation and experience why not just try using a blow torch on your plants for five minutes before harvesting them? That might shock them really well and turn them into wunder-pot. I'm sure no one has tried that one yet so you might as well be the first to see if it works.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, conventional wisdom is often overturned, especially in scientific circles.

Japanfreak said:

You haven't tried it so you're opinion doesn't mean much to me, sorry. I value experience more than people trying to shoot holes in other people's experience. Now people used to do this, and they claim there was a difference. That's enough for me to keep an open mind. You know it seems like a person who prides yourself on your experience, it's a shame that you decide to give opinions on things you have no experience with, but many on pot boards are the same.

Somebody above asked where I had seen the debate before; on OG and PG and a bit at icmag.

Click to expand...

supercropping is a technique used to stop the verticle growth of the main stem by pinching, or crimping the main growth to divert auxins to lower branch sites. meaning that the plant has almost but not completely cut off turgor pressure, SLOWING the main growth. so it is illogical to think that giving the plants less water/nutes is going to increase area of interest.

supercropping is an example

Viagro said:

With all due respect, conventional wisdom is often overturned, especially in scientific circles.

Click to expand...

We are not talking theory, or at least I am not. What I have said has been known for decades and longer and no amount of research has ever proven it to be wrong yet.

You might as well try to argue against the existence of gravity. You would have every bit as good of a chance of disproving it.

This thread is a perfect example of why from time to time I take breaks from this place. People ask questions. They receive a factual answer .. and then they want to argue against it until the cows come home.

Why do people ask if they honestly do not want to know? Why do people pretend they want to learn when they really do not want to learn? Why do people insist that their fantasies might be reality when reality has already proven them to be fantasies?

For all I care all of you can twist your plants into pretzel shapes just before harvest to attempt to shock them into doing something they are utterly incapable of doing. It won't bother me in the least and it will not cause me any problems.

Have at it! Do whatever you want. I am through with attempting to to educate the uneducable.

Brick Top said:

We are not talking theory, or at least I am not. What I have said has been known for decades and longer and no amount of research has ever proven it to be wrong yet.

You might as well try to argue against the existence of gravity. You would have every bit as good of a chance of disproving it.

This thread is a perfect example of why from time to time I take breaks from this place. People ask questions. They receive a factual answer .. and then they want to argue against it until the cows come home.

Why do people ask if they honestly do not want to know? Why do people pretend they want to learn when they really do not want to learn? Why do people insist that their fantasies might be reality when reality has already proven them to be fantasies?

For all I care all of you can twist your plants into pretzel shapes just before harvest to attempt to shock them into doing something they are utterly incapable of doing. It won't bother me in the least and it will not cause me any problems.

Have at it! Do whatever you want. I am through with attempting to to educate the uneducable.

Click to expand...

Suit yourself, but I never said you were wrong, except that conventional wisdom is often overturned in theory AND practice. And this not suggesting the theory of gravity is wrong, to use your analogy, It is more about an anomalous possibility. Theoretical anomalies that fly in the face of reason yet become accepted doctrine aren't that rare.

And, I wasn't vouching for anything, I was just asking... and put in the position of devil's advocate. It's nothing personal, but you sort of sound like the head of the US patent office, over a hundred years ago, who suggested shutting the office down because everything that could be invented, had.

meezy4tw said:

"mmm yeah baby, you swell thos f*ckin calyx's, mmmmmm yeah show me that frosty goodness, yeah slow and nice,...just like that."
lol sorry couldn't help myself.

Click to expand...

God dammit....waking up to this shit after smoking a bowl of Cali Bubba is just priceless, absolutely priceless...thank you.

Now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't work. But I was thinking about super cropping and that's what threw me off.

Brick Top said:

That is very typical of someone totally lacking in factual botanical knowledge.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. Dude, you're talking out of your ass on a pot board. Experience trumps talking out of your ass every time.

Viagro said:

Suit yourself, but I never said you were wrong, except that conventional wisdom is often overturned in theory AND practice. And this not suggesting the theory of gravity is wrong, to use your analogy, It is more about an anomalous possibility. Theoretical anomalies that fly in the face of reason yet become accepted doctrine aren't that rare.

And, I wasn't vouching for anything, I was just asking... and put in the position of devil's advocate. It's nothing personal, but you sort of sound like the head of the US patent office, over a hundred years ago, who suggested shutting the office down because everything that could be invented, had.

Click to expand...

I think it's funny that everybody is so willing to shoot this down without every trying it. They just must really think that anybody who lived before them are the biggest idiots in the world. I think if it does work it would probably work for a reason that nobody has thought about.

Well this thread went downhill...

Downhill from what exactly? Nothing new in this thread, the internet is filled with people speaking from a position of inexperience trying to pass it off as fact on every pot board out there.

Recently I ran an experiment to see if you could clone successfully in the dark, everybody and their google power voiced in on why it would never work, not in a million years, they had fucking Nasa papers backing them up. It worked and for several people using different cloning methods.

Every science paper out there says that superthrive is snake oil, and yet there are millions of people who actually use it who claim otherwise.

Be brave....speak from a position of experience.

Japanfreak said:

I think it's funny that everybody is so willing to shoot this down without every trying it. They just must really think that anybody who lived before them are the biggest idiots in the world. I think if it does work it would probably work for a reason that nobody has thought about.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it reminds me of the Gandhi quote: "First, they ignore you. Then, they ridicule you. Then, they attack you. And then you win." Sort of.

What gets me is nobody was advocating anything, just asking about a published technique, and nobody with any experience with it responded. So, they took out the sharp knives and carved it up with obvious suspicions. I don't get it.

edit: Actually, I think this is the quote I had in mind:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

japanfreak and viagro, could you guys post a link to your grows.?.