defoliation? yes/no and techniques

Uncle Ben said:

Do a fuckin' search and READ! There are at least 3 threads on this dumb noobie practice right under your nose. Don't start another thread on any topic until you've used the search feature!

UB

Click to expand...

Uncle Ben said:

Wow, so I'm the cause of threads being shut down? You're beginning to sound like Obama. Every time he (you) creates a scandalous pile of shit with his spin and deceit, he blames it on someone else.

Click to expand...

Dwezelitsame said:

only truly believe whut you have tried for self
experiment is your best friend
this site used to be a virtue knowledge base
i did my pre k - elementry - high - and college right here
now a bunch of kids answer questions dont know of whut they speak

reason so many varried answers- most dont have aclue

wll i was interested in the same thing
once got a lot of diff answers
so i tried for myself defoliation at diff stages of flower

i learned large fans affect part of plant its connected to
and only needed till stretch is over
sum plants start to kill them at about 2/3 into flower
sum turn them yellow sum drop them sum turn brown sum purple and brittle an sum do nothing -stay green

i learned you never touch the leaves that suger up they will hurt your production if removed - ispeak of single leaves sticking out of buds
and tiny fans surrounding buds never never touch them

i also learned removing fans did not change production sum said it will improve it sum said it will hurt it i found niether it did allow more air to circulate that might have helped


remember to experiment and dont believe shit not me not no one - and do me favor dont spread shit untill proven
help to make this place whole again

be kind when all express there opinions on untested shit - whut they heard an read - thank them just dont buy into it and dont spred it - if it tests out OK -then believe an spread



another thing i tested is autos can be cloned altho most say cant - but no sence will die wit moms in 8 - 9 wks




1Luv

I N I
Rastafari

Click to expand...

Uncle Ben said:

Snaps fingers and yells to the mods, "yo mods, gonna let another loser newbie thread tarnish this site?"

Close this thread........

Click to expand...

Uncle Ben said:

Snaps fingers and yells to the mods, "yo mods, gonna let another loser newbie thread tarnish this site?"

Close this thread........

Click to expand...

Jbone77 said:

Legitimate question here but a bit off topic, why do so many "pros" repeatedly post in dumb newbie threads and why do they read dumb newbie threads in the first place? I can understand when you disagree and state your objections and leave but to repeatedly post in a dumb newbie thread, would make you part of the thread, and would by definition make you a dumb newbie. Just sayin. Oh yeah, I dont remove leaves either but could give a shit less if you do because it doesnt impact my life in the least.

Click to expand...

HeartlandHank said:

Trollitup has become a social circle..
People coming here for growing advice are in the wrong place..
People coming for a laugh and a handful of folks that are great to shoot the shit with... welcome to RIU.

I love RIU.

Click to expand...

Nullis said:

Many folks around here are extremely difficult to comprehend. This is part of the problem. The other part of the problem with most threads like this is that cutting off a few low branches, or leaves that are depleted (come off very easily) isn't defoliation and isn't really the issue. People remove perfectly healthy leaves, some fools go so far as to strip the plant of all fan leaves because they think they are not necessary or they are in the way. Really now? Forgetting entirely about what those leaves are there for, there are alternatives to removing them. How in the hell wouldn't they be necessary? Not that some plant don't posses a vestigial organ, but at any rate it would be the stipules, not the leaves.

It just baffles me why someone, at least somebody who understood how plants function, would want to remove perfectly healthy leaves. Not that the plant can't grow more leaves and it will grow more leaves but for the sake of practicality, sensibility, efficiency what is the issue some have with those big healthy leaves? Those are the most efficient at photosynthesis! If nothing else there are very important nutrients and compounds in those leaves that the plant has already assembled. If for whatever reason the leave isn't doing enough for the plant, the plant will 'prune' itself. Whatever compounds the plants can put to use elsewhere it will, and then the leaf starts to detach. Nature would help these leaves fall off, so sometimes we need to take natures role in that regard.

I do think it comes down to the fact that some people really cannot leave well enough alone and\or need to feel like they have complete control of everything.

Click to expand...

Nullis said:

Plants are not mobile organisms. For us when it gets too hot or cold or something is about to chop our limbs off, we can get up and walk away. A plant cannot do that; a plant has to stick around and be able to tough out the conditions where ever it sprang up. If a plant loses a part of itself it will usually regenerate so long as enough foliage is left and it does this because it has to in order to survive. If the dominant meristem is damaged or severed the axillary meristems will take over; when we do this intentionally indoors we call it topping. How it actually works, for those who don't know, is the apex (top) of the dominant meristem is producing auxin, a plant hormone which inhibits the growth of those axillary shoots. Remove the apex and growth of those side shoots is enhanced; one or more of the top most shoots should take over. Of course, this undoubtedly happened outside in nature before it ever happened in anybodies grow room... and why does the plant do this? Probably because it has to in order to survive.

The point is that topping a plant results in a definite, observable response the outcome of which is typically overwhelmingly favorable and can be predicted. Plus the phenomenon can be explained.

Plants certainly are not asking for insects, high winds, or damage to their foliage in general. In the outdoor environment they're certainly likely to incur some abusive forces at some point and for the species as a whole it is entirely inevitable; they just have to be able to recover from such damage. I cannot explain this any other way. Indoors we're supposed to be able to give our plants more ideal conditions so they don't necessarily have to deal with such stressors.

Why are we cutting off the big fan leaves, again, what do those things do? They are only the most efficient producers of energy on the plant, after all. But they are 'shading' some lower growth or inner side shoot? I assure you that plants do not 'see' light the same way that humans do (look up human eye anatomy and how our eyes adjust to see between light levels, it is fascinating) and light does actually pass right through the upper canopy. The upper leaves are likely utilizing the higher-energy wavelengths of light (blue) while the lower energy yellow-green wavelengths are probably used more by lower growth.

The side shoot will grow (stretch) to get more light if it wants it. Plants should be kept short\within what is reasonable for your lighting, or lower growth removed before flowering. Otherwise if somebody is so damned concerned about a leaf 'shading' a bud or a lower\side shoot, why not just move or tie it out of the way a bit?

Or why not look into some side lighting? How can a leaf be too big and why does it have to be removed? Can a plant can be too healthy, or something?

Click to expand...

Nullis said:

I wasn't trying to 'prove' anything, hardly anyways (if I did it was an accident, I swear), I was more-so asking for proof or, more specifically, what 'defoliation' actually encompasses, why is the leaf removed? Why not tuck it out of the way. Why not use side lighting, or more intense lighting? Use a trellis? Etc.

More recently here I have merely been trying to express what the term 'defoliant' in the English language and popular botany means. But, I suppose if 'irrelevant' isn't even a word in your version of the English language, I shouldn't be surprised.

de•fo•li•ate (diˈfoʊ liˌeɪt)

v. -at•ed, -at•ing. v.t. 1. to strip (trees, etc.) of leaves.
2. to cause widespread loss of leaves in (an area of jungle, forest, etc.), as to deprive an enemy of concealment.
v.i. 3. to lose leaves.
Thesaurus Legend: †Synonyms ‡Related Words *Antonyms
Verb 1. defoliate - strip the leaves or branches from; "defoliate the trees with pesticides"
‡denudate, denude, bare, strip - lay bare; "denude a forest"
Adj. 1. defoliate - deprived of leaves
†defoliated
‡leafless - having no leaves

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nullis said:

... You could explain to us what exactly "defoliation" encompasses, what happens when you "defoliate" and most importantly why would this be of any benefit? What makes it better than the various alternatives?

By the way, photos on internet forums amount to zilch! The things that people associate with their grow room observations is some times astonishing. Honestly, people typically have absolutely no idea why grow B turned out better than grow A. Whether you decided for whatever reason, whenever, to remove how ever many fan leaves; this doesn't automatically mean that made the "bud formation better". There are myriad variables to consider, even amongst clones in the same grow room never mind different plants from altogether separate grows. You're damn right I am not going to just accept such bs "actual proof you seen yourself". I mean, come on.

Again, first of all, familiarize yourself with confirmation bias. Now allow me to reiterate how pictures on forums typically mean; nil, null, nothing. People can set up grow 'experiments' to show whatever result they want as far as making one plant bigger than another goes. Someone could bloom one group of plants under a 600 watt HPS, the other under a 600 watt halide and you'll "see a difference". One could bloom just one group under a 1000 watt halide and you'll "see a difference" and have a much larger yield.

But it could be something even more innocuous and the grower doesn't even realize the results of his experiment are invalid. For example you have two groups of plants: clones from the same mother. You want to do such and such to one group and leave the other as a control. You have two identical 600 watt HPS lighting systems (ballast, reflector, air cooling), in identical grow tents. But, they aren't really the same because you forgot to consider the detail of bulb brand and age. Sure they are both 600 watt high pressure sodium lamps; but one is a Hortilux and it is brand new, the other is a 'Plant Max' and it is 4+ months old.

Aside from that I believe we've already established topping\super cropping as a much more universal plant phenomenon, which more importantly can be explained in scientific terms. What are we leaving out, anything?

Click to expand...

Nullis said:

Hacking your plants leaves to shit\cutting off all the big leaves is pretty much what 'defoliation' is all about. So why are we arguing? Sure it is your grow, run it how you want. Even though we seem to agree on some level, because selective trimming is not defoliation. But certainly it does seem to me that this plant, which has indeed evolved over millions of years- probably an eon and through out countless generations of natural selection, knows a hell of a lot more about how to grow itself than any human being.

It irritates me to no end when people pull this cop out. "It's a weed, man". This has nothing to do with anything, but even so, weed is merely an umbrella-term...and scavenger plant? Seriously? No. It is not parasitic nor carnivorous. A weed is merely: A wild plant growing where it is not wanted and in competition with cultivated plants; an unwanted plant. By this definition sure Cannabis is a weed, but it can also be a cultivated plant; in your house it is a cultivated plant and not a weed.

It would really be nice if people would try to educate themselves on how plants actually work; how photosynthesis works; how the soil food web works, etc. There are plenty of credible sources of this kind of information online, including from colleges and universities around the world. If you want to perform your own kind of experimentation on plants, you should be some-what familiar with the scientific method, controlling and limiting variables. The results of any experiment are only really legitimate if every single variable was accounted for that could be (and results can be replicated); only a single variable is allowed to differ between the test group and the control group and ALL other things MUST be EQUAL. Including lighting, especially lighting. Plant A got more intense lighting than Plant B, well guess what plant A is probably going to have larger, dense buds.

You also need to be aware of confirmation bias and what it is. When people suggest to others that they experiment and try things out on their own, well that is good advice to an extent, but not everybody is really aware how to experiment. So when people come on here laying claim to their experiments or what they notice it needs to be taken with the obligatory grain of salt.

Click to expand...

Nullis said:

No one said it was or that there was any singular right way to grow. There are certainly many different ways to grow, but what you've described is more so personal preference. Personal preference is all good, on a personal level. The problem is once people start talking about their preferences and their personal little tests as if they followed stringent protocols and have actually proven something beyond a reasonable doubt- when they simply haven't.

For example, when testing lighting, plant foods, other products or techniques on plants you really can't just rely on your eyes and memory of what the previous crop was like. Even clones in the same grow room can tend to respond differently for whatever reason, while they are seemingly being treated the same way. And you cannot just blatantly dismiss human tendency towards confirmation bias, especially when you're performing experiments with no controls whatsoever.

You go to try something that you heard of and already favor the idea of... even without realizing it, you're going to tend to selectively gather the information that lends you to believe that it is better this way; whether this is actually the case or not.

I shave my pubes at times. Me and the ladies prefer it that way; it feels better and it tends to make my cock look bigger. Of course I know better than to suppose it actually is. In reality there is no correlation between the size of my penis and the presence of hair around it.

Click to expand...

Jbone77 said:

Legitimate question here but a bit off topic, why do so many "pros" repeatedly post in dumb newbie threads and why do they read dumb newbie threads in the first place? I can understand when you disagree and state your objections and leave but to repeatedly post in a dumb newbie thread, would make you part of the thread, and would by definition make you a dumb newbie. Just sayin. Oh yeah, I dont remove leaves either but could give a shit less if you do because it doesnt impact my life in the least.

Click to expand...

Uncle Ben said:

"Spacebook", seize the moment.

Click to expand...

Fresh 2 De@th said:

Defoliation- Source vs. Sink:


First of all, you will need to understand the concept of Source vs. Sink within a plant. Pretty self explanatory, a source is any part of the plant that generates more photosynthate (sugar) than it requires for growth, and a sink is any part of the plant that requires more photosynthate than it can produce (or is producing). What is key to understand with this is that a plant tissue can change from sink, to source, and back to sink all as part of the plants natural process. For example, a newly forming leaf (fan leaf or bud leaf) is always going to be a sink, requiring more sugar to grow than it is currently producing from photosynthesis. . . but once that leaf has reached close to its mature size, it is producing much more sugar than it requires because it is hardly growing at that point. . . .and then again as that leaf becomes older and cells start to get older, the chlorophyll will actually lose effeciency and although the leaf may still look green and healthy, it is no longer generating more photosynthate than it requires to stay alive, and therefore older leaves become sinks again!


There are also parts of the plant which will almost always be sinks. Those are things like the roots (obviously no way of producing photosynthate, but still require it), the flowers on most plants because most flowers contain very little to no chlorophyll compared to a leaf, and seeds are always going to be sinks (the strongest sink).


The important reason I am explaining the Source vs. Sink relationship is because when you have too many sinks and not enough sources, your yield goes down and the overall vigor of your plant is reduced. So to maximize yield and sugar content in the final product (the buds), growers should try to eliminate other sinks as much as possible, while maintaining as many strong sources as they can without risking poor airflow or reduced efficiency with too much shading.


Keeping all this in mind, you can guess that a leaf which is receiving less light (heavily shaded) is most likely going to be functioning as a sink in the plant, drawing sugar away from other sinks that you may be more concerned about such as the buds. Removing leaves above the shaded leaf may give it more light, and maybe enough to start generating more sugar than it needs, but the lower down the leaf, the sooner it will be past its highest efficiency and the closer it is to becoming a sink permanently because of photosynthetic efficiency loss. Therefore, I tend to remove older fan leaves (less efficient) first before I go removing mature newer leaves higher up on the stems because they are more efficient.


Now, once you have removed any leaves that are past their prime, you may still have some fan leaves shading other bud sites, which in cannabis do produce their own smaller bud leaves. The larger fan leaves are MUCH more efficient at producing photosynthate than the smaller bud leaves, and because they tend to be more exposed to air flow they will also transpire more, meaning they help more water and nutrients move through the plant compared to bud leaves which have much less surface area and transpire/photosynthesize much less. So, that means it is better to keep large fan leaves, even if they are shading a bud site or two, because they will function as a source for the bud site (sink) and send its excess sugar to the bud. If you remove the fan leaf, the bud is already functioning as a sink, and so will have to get the rest of the sugar it needs from a different fan leaf on the plant (different source required), meaning a different sink is now getting less than it was because it is sharing its sugar supply from its own fan leaf. . . . this kind of sharing and relocating of sugar pathways takes extra energy in itself, and is not beneficial even if the bud site is no longer being shaded and can produce slightly more sugar on its own from the small bud leaves.


In conclusion, remove old fan leaves especially if they are no longer receiving any direct light. Try to maintain as many sources on the plant as possible by getting as much light and air flow to the newer mature fan leaves as possible. Remove any very low sinks that are far away from any strong sources because they will generate almost no photosynthate on their own, along with drawing photosynthate away from other sinks that are more local to the source leaves higher on the plant. And don't worry if your bud leaves are shaded, because they are sinks anyways, so the plant is pumping all the excess sugar from local fan leaves to the nearest/strongest sinks it can find (your buds)!!

Click to expand...