defoliation question..... anyone familiar with it?

keebo3000 · Dec 28, 2012

akula said:
Basically years ago I declared war on a trench of blackberry bushes a few years ago. I took a chainsaw to them, then rented this machine with a 4 foot disk blade to rip the roots down to 3 feet or so.
.

im a little confused.... how does this example equate to defoliation... but hey i love your grammar at least.

akula · Dec 28, 2012

keebo3000 said:
im a little confused.... how does this example equate to defoliation... but hey i love your grammar at least.

Great now I am getting grammar grief from someone that hasn't bothered with his own grammar (nor spelling or capitalization) for this entire thread. Since I dont bother proof reading simple forum posts (as in missing myself repeating myself sometimes happens to me...... ;-)

), I dont expect others to either, thus I dont comment on their grammar. Now some people are anal about their grammar. They make sure their own grammar is impeccable, and correct others on their grammar. These types are usually just annoying. Now someone that has shitty grammar habits, and corrects others.....maybe someone else can help us with what they call these type of people.

Anyways the BB example is more to show how confirmation biases work. But if you want to really nit pick here, I am sure any clown can figure out that cutting off all the leaves and branches off a plant fits perfectly into the definition of defoliation. Ironically, though, it fits your little experiment here pretty snugly. I also showed you why my BB defoliation "experiment" was flawed (you know, like not having a control group for one....).

But good luck with your experiment. I will now be subbing to this thread to do my own little research on the effects of confirmation bias.

keebo3000 · Dec 28, 2012

akula said:
Great now I am getting grammar grief from someone that hasn't bothered with his own grammar (nor spelling or capitalization) for this entire thread. Since I dont bother proof reading simple forum posts (as in missing myself repeating myself sometimes happens to me......), I dont expect others to either, thus I dont comment on their grammar. Now some people are anal about their grammar. They make sure their own grammar is impeccable, and correct others on their grammar. These types are usually just annoying. Now someone that has shitty grammar habits, and corrects others.....maybe someone else can help us with what they call these type of people.

Anyways the BB example is more to show how confirmation biases work. But if you want to really nit pick here, I am sure any clown can figure out that cutting off all the leaves and branches off a plant fits perfectly into the definition of defoliation. Ironically, though, it fits your little experiment here pretty snugly. I also showed you why my BB defoliation "experiment" was flawed (you know, like not having a control group for one....).

But good luck with your experiment. I will now be subbing to this thread to do my own little research on the effects of confirmation bias.

sorry if you took it wrong way. i just appreciate your words. sorry

keebo3000 · Dec 28, 2012

akula said:
Great now I am getting grammar grief from someone that hasn't bothered with his own grammar (nor spelling or capitalization) for this entire thread. Since I dont bother proof reading simple forum posts (as in missing myself repeating myself sometimes happens to me......), I dont expect others to either, thus I dont comment on their grammar. Now some people are anal about their grammar. They make sure their own grammar is impeccable, and correct others on their grammar. These types are usually just annoying. Now someone that has shitty grammar habits, and corrects others.....maybe someone else can help us with what they call these type of people.

Anyways the BB example is more to show how confirmation biases work. But if you want to really nit pick here, I am sure any clown can figure out that cutting off all the leaves and branches off a plant fits perfectly into the definition of defoliation. Ironically, though, it fits your little experiment here pretty snugly. I also showed you why my BB defoliation "experiment" was flawed (you know, like not having a control group for one....).

But good luck with your experiment. I will now be subbing to this thread to do my own little research on the effects of confirmation bias.

and I was going to do control group but since these are all from seed it still wouldn't be as accurate as with clones, once again I just love they way to articulate your thoughts. most dont. they result to name calling when others disagree. but hey i'm all for experimentation, although honestly i have no i dea what confirmation bias is, I will be looking it up. the more you know the more you grow.

keebo3000 · Dec 28, 2012

keebo3000 said:
and I was going to do control group but since these are all from seed it still wouldn't be as accurate as with clones, once again I just love they way to articulate your thoughts. most dont. they result to name calling when others disagree. but hey i'm all for experimentation, although honestly i have no i dea what confirmation bias is, I will be looking it up. the more you know the more you grow.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[SUP][Note 1][/SUP][SUP][1][/SUP] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

GOT IT!!

keebo3000 · Dec 28, 2012

keebo3000 said:
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[SUP][Note 1][/SUP][SUP][1][/SUP] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

GOT IT!!

well honestly i've done 3 grows without cutting a single leaf( minus lollipoping) so i, as you pointed out,am experimenting. so i looked at it from the other side so now im gathering info for deleafing. so in a since your view of this thread and myself is dead on. right now im looking to talk to those few growers who have had sucess with this imaginary or otherwise. but most agree with you, hell i agree with you because i haven't done anything to prove you theory wrong. just for my point of view. in my last three grows yielded in order 6.3 oz--- 6.5--- than 8.7 so for me if i yeild anything over 8.7 it's a sucess, now if that does happen will it mean is was because of defoliation and just because im doing a little bet better in my all around growing who knows. I do know i dont want to argue about a plant i so dearly love. so peace to you and i wish you well on all your endeavors!!

akula · Dec 28, 2012

keebo3000 said:
in my last three grows yielded in order 6.3 oz--- 6.5--- than 8.7 so for me if i yeild anything over 8.7 it's a sucess, now if that does happen will it mean is was because of defoliation and just because im doing a little bet better in my all around growing who knows.

This is exactly what I mean. If you have a harvest that doubles your last threes average, then the pro side will claim it provides proof of their position. That is confirmation bias. If, however, your harvest yields half of the average of your last three grows, then the con side claims its evidence of their position. That is also confirmation bias.

The fact is that there could be an unlimited number of reasons that you get a certain set of results. Even having a control group is not without its problems, but it is better then not having one. We would almost be better just flipping a coin here for heads for pro-defoliation and tails for con-defoliation.

Until someone provides some scientific reasoning why defoliation should work, I wont bother losing too much sleep over the issue. For example, if someone can show a process where calyxes might swell even more as a direct result of fan leaf defoliation, I might pay attention. Instead we get the "fan leaves shade bud sites", while ignoring the fact that photosynthesis does not use visible light in its processes and that calyxes(and the small leafs around them) are woefully less efficient photosynthesizers then fan leaves are. They also overlook the fact that plants have an internal transport system where the calyxes are the always the express destination route.

robert030188 · Dec 28, 2012

PJ Diaz said:
Those two are V+B. My other G13 Haze are fed Botanicare PureBlend Pro/Hydroplex/Instant Kharma/Pro-Tek, which is the control group I'm testing V+B against. Coco + perlite is the medium.

If you look in the pic (it's kinda hard to tell), but there are two plants in the back. The one on the left is the V+B fed, and the one on the right is the control nute group.

Damn man the veg+bloom is killin the multiple liquid nute regimen, its atleast a foot taller than the other one and the resin production is rediculous...i think i'll be sticking with v+b as my main nute and tweaking P-K in flower...shit works great honestly...i'll have to get some more pics of my baby up next time i see her, my top colas are coming in nice and she still has 6 weeks flower left roughly

Uncle Ben · Dec 28, 2012

Alexander Supertramp said:
The Mennonites(medonite?)enjoy their driving and the Amish carry cellphones.

View attachment 2457833

I agree, they are keeping up just fine...

One of my contractors who has land in Chihuahua Mexico told me about what the Mennonites have accomplished in that state - hundreds of acres of apple groves, planned communities, some of the best cheese you can get....very high tech while maintaining their religious way of life. This Mex-Am contractor who regularly visits there gave me 3 different cheese they make. They were excellent. They are an interesting group of people. Today, over 80,000 Mennonites live in Northern Mexico and many still speak the medieval German dialect, Plautdietsch.

The Mennonites, whose lives revolve around farming, have transformed the arid landscape of Chihuahua into productive fields of corn, beans, oats and wheat, turning the border state into one of Mexico's top milk producers.

The conservative Christian church, whose members arrived in Mexico from Canada in 1922 after a long journey through Russia, the Netherlands and Germany, has drilled deep wells in the arid land, using the water to produce corn harvests exceeding 300,000 tons.

The Mennonites, who are the largest producers of oats in Mexico and also have extensive fields planted with beans, have now started to produce apples in large quantities.

The community's star product, a food with which people all over Mexico are familiar, is Mennonite, or "Chihuahua," cheese, of which they produce 70,000 kilos (nearly 155,000 pounds) a day, selling this delicacy across the republic.

Cheese production expanded rapidly to take advantage of the community's vast milk production, which now hovers around 400,000 liters (105,675 gallons) per day, Mennonite community member Abram Siemens said.

The Mennonites, moreover, have constructed enormous facilities, known as "macro cheese plants," where they have improved the production of dairy products by developing special genetic strains of cattle, incorporating breeds from Canada, the United States and New Zealand.

The businesses run by the Mennonites employ about 20,000 people in Chihuahua, with the majority of them working in agriculture and dairy production, Lisa Wolf, who runs the Mennonite Cultural Center and Museum in Ciudad Cuauhtemoc, told Efe.

The community has started building a strong metal-working industry, as well as agricultural machinery and furniture businesses, Wolf said.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/espanol/2011/06/01/mennonites-engine-mexicos-desert-agriculture/#ixzz2GP99omn3

PJ Diaz · Dec 28, 2012

akula said:
Confirmation bias. I presented a example earlier on a different thread.

Basically years ago I declared war on a trench of blackberry bushes a few years ago. I took a chainsaw to them, then rented this machine with a 4 foot disk blade to rip the roots down to 3 feet or so.

It wasnt a few years later that my daughter was back down there picking big lushes blackberries. I could walk right down there and take pictures of the most healthy, fruit producing blackberries you will ever see.

So does this mean that chainsawing healthy BB plants and ripping their roots is a valid technique to growing sweet blackberries?

No. What it means is that you took it upon yourself to attack a "pest" without a firm understanding of the nature of that pest. "Confirmation bias" seems like the last lesson you should have learned from that experience. How about learning what the nature of your enemy is before you attack it? That would be a more valuable lesson, IMO.

akula said:
... while ignoring the fact that photosynthesis does not use visible light in its processes...

Wait a sec dude. Are you high, or just confused? You don't think that photosynthesis uses viable light? WTF?!

Learn about the light dude. Here's the first page I pulled up in a random google search of "photosynthesis visible light": http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/ecotree/photosynthesis/spectrum.htm

From that page:

[h=3]The nature of light[/h] The energy produced by the sun reaches the earth as electromagnetic radiation. Light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation are considered to have both a wave nature and a particle nature. Particles or packets of light (its particle nature) are known as photons - the smallest divisible units of light. The brightness of light depends on the number of photons absorbed per unit time. Each photon carries a fixed amount of energy which determines the amount that the photon vibrates. The distance moved by a photon during one of it vibrations is referred to as its wavelength and is measured in nanometres.

Electromagnetic radiation spans a broad range of wavelengths. At the one end of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation there are gamma rays which have a wavelength of 10[SUP]-5[/SUP] nm and at the other end, radio waves which have a wavelength of 10[SUP]12[/SUP]nm. A very small part of this spectrum can be seen by the human eye i.e. between the wavelengths 380 and 750 nm. This part of the electromagnetic spectrum is called visible light. Almost all life depends ultimately on this part of the spectrum for its energy. Humans perceive the different wavelengths of visible light as different colours.
Within the spectrum the longer the wavelength of the radiation, the slower the vibration of the photons and the less energy each photon contains. Thus photons of ultraviolet light, at the blue end of the visible spectrum, have shorter wavelengths and contain more energy than red light and infrared radiation.
Sunlight contains 4% ultraviolet radiation, 52% infrared radiation and 44% visible light.
Why is only visible light used by plants ?
[h=3]Light and photosynthesis.[/h] Chlorophyll does not absorb all the wavelengths of visible light equally. Chlorophyll a, the most important light-absorbing pigment in plants, does not absorb light in the green part of the spectrum. Light in this range of wavelengths is reflected. This is the reason why chlorophyll is green and also why plants (which contain a lot of chlorophyll) are also green. Note in the graph above that the absorption of light by chlorophyll a is at a maximum at two points on the graph 430 and 662 nm. The rate of photosynthesis at the different wavelengths of visible light also show two peaks which roughly correspond to the absorption peaks of chlorophyll a. Plants do not depend only on chlorophyll a in their light harvesting machinery but also have other pigments (accessory pigments) which absorb light of different wavelengths.

You just lost any credit you could have ever had with me.

rooky1985 · Dec 28, 2012

Thanks Diaz, very informative post. I can only speak from experience and I have defoliated slightly during veg trying to give a scrog canopy even light. Once my girls are in flower I do not remove anything that isn't dead (I do remove select growth under canopy). I feel that fans are essential to prolonged feeding during the final flush stage.

Slab · Dec 29, 2012

the only real advancement I have seen in the Cannabis industry in the last 40 years has been the weed grinder.

for some perspective to you young guys, Direct Water Culture was invented in the 1890's.

what your defoliation experiment is revealing is just how incompetent you can be and still harvest a good crop.

Uncle Ben · Dec 29, 2012

akula said:
This is exactly what I mean. If you have a harvest that doubles your last threes average, then the pro side will claim it provides proof of their position. That is confirmation bias. If, however, your harvest yields half of the average of your last three grows, then the con side claims its evidence of their position. That is also confirmation bias.

The fact is that there could be an unlimited number of reasons that you get a certain set of results. Even having a control group is not without its problems, but it is better then not having one. We would almost be better just flipping a coin here for heads for pro-defoliation and tails for con-defoliation.

Until someone provides some scientific reasoning why defoliation should work, I wont bother losing too much sleep over the issue. For example, if someone can show a process where calyxes might swell even more as a direct result of fan leaf defoliation, I might pay attention. Instead we get the "fan leaves shade bud sites", while ignoring the fact that photosynthesis does not use visible light in its processes and that calyxes(and the small leafs around them) are woefully less efficient photosynthesizers then fan leaves are. They also overlook the fact that plants have an internal transport system where the calyxes are the always the express destination route.

You nailed it!

Sir.Ganga · Dec 29, 2012

Uncle Ben said:
Bullshit, that is simply not true as are the rest of your assumptions. We've been down this road a million times and the group dynamics are always the same - young gullible kids that buy into snake oil products and gimmicks and ideologies without producing one link to a field test done by a non-partisan, non profit, high tech organization like a state extension service.

I'm a commercial niche farmer, greenhouse owner/grower and live in an area that commercially produces every kind of fruit, nut, berry, grape, forage (hay) and veggie crop you can imagine under every kind of circumstances - soil, soil-less, aquaponics, etc., outdoors and under "glass". It is impossible to increase yields if you remove the very unit that produces the flowers/fruits in the first place.....the pros know better. And don't get training or pruning (as in pruning dormant grapevines) confused with defoliation of cannabis fan leaves (just when the plant needs them the most).

This is what you should be reading - http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda Chalker-Scott/Horticultural Myths_files/index.html But nooooooo, you're drawn into the blind leading the blind. I challenge any one to pass off you lame theories (they're not facts, sorry) on to Dr. Linda Chalker. She's solid, helluva nice lady...very approachable and patient, and will give you facts based on science, not hearsay and seeing what you've set yourself up psychologically to want to see.

UB

Go back to your CAVE and keep patting yourself on the back UB...some of us see you for what you are worth...you do realize this 2012 right? If your all what you say you are then you know exactly what Im talking abouy...A commercial grower my ass, you don't even know the meaning of defoliation, your cronies post the meaning then even argue with the interpitation of it. If you pick any leaves its called defoilating period.

Farming and green house gardening have changed GREATLY in the last 20 yrs and if you don't know this then keep your outdated practices to yourself..or at least listen to people that have a clue.

4th generation farmer Alexander? There is a big difference in growing wheat in a field my friend and increasing yeilds of tomatoes in a hot house. Do ya think you can triple the output of a tomatoe plant by water, light and food? Manipulating plants to increase yeild has been a respected practice all over america and that included defoilation or as you want to confuse newbs(selective pruning). Yes I too have used this term selective pruning but at the end of the day I know what that means.

Get over your big heads and do some real research, what you learnt 20yrs ago is no longer applicable in the most part.

Do either one of you two produce more product than the strains genetics allow? I doubt it, in fact I don't even have to see to say you are nowhere near that point yet! But you come on here selling your wears like its all that...Well its not!

keebo3000 · Dec 29, 2012

Uncle Ben said:
You nailed it!

im starting to understand this confirmation bias thing.

keebo3000 · Dec 29, 2012

Slab said:
the only real advancement I have seen in the Cannabis industry in the last 40 years has been the weed grinder.

for some perspective to you young guys, Direct Water Culture was invented in the 1890's.

what your defoliation experiment is revealing is just how incompetent you can be and still harvest a good crop.

FIMing? have attempted defoliation? what were your findings?.... or are you just another soapboxer... i

keebo3000 · Dec 29, 2012

Slab said:
the only real advancement I have seen in the Cannabis industry in the last 40 years has been the weed grinder.

for some perspective to you young guys, Direct Water Culture was invented in the 1890's.

what your defoliation experiment is revealing is just how incompetent you can be and still harvest a good crop.

indoor growing, new since last 40 years. led lights also new last forty years, hell HID lights also new in the last forty years... you might want to update that almanac pops!!
these whippersnappers are learning things everyday... ever heard of a vaporizer?? kinda new too electronic ballasts, new as well FIMing, topping, supercropping all invented last 40 years.... no credibility

Slab · Dec 29, 2012

FIM Topping supercropping are ANCIENT techniques, I mean 1000's of years old.

Screen of Green, that's coming up on 30 years old. Love it by the way. can't do it without taking a good amount off leaf off.

Big Leaving is the term used in commercial cannabis growin.

HID lightiing was invented in 1904
HPS 1966
LED in 1960

Indoor gardening has been around longer then I have been alive, I was born in 1968.

I do prune leafs, I use a technique that I learned in Holland. Defoliation is not a great term to use when we are GROWING things.

having credibility with you is not important, having your respect is.

Alexander Supertramp · Dec 29, 2012

HID lightings invented the last 40 years? I thought this was 2012 not the 1960s.......
First LPS lamp was invented by Arthur H. Compton at Westinghouse in 1920

keebo3000 · Dec 29, 2012

Slab said:
FIM Topping supercropping are ANCIENT techniques, I mean 1000's of years old.

Screen of Green, that's coming up on 30 years old. Love it by the way. can't do it without taking a good amount off leaf off.

Big Leaving is the term used in commercial cannabis growin.

HID lightiing was invented in 1904
HPS 1966
LED in 1960

Indoor gardening has been around longer then I have been alive, I was born in 1968.

I do prune leafs, I use a technique that I learned in Holland. Defoliation is not a great term to use when we are GROWING things.

having credibility with you is not important, having your respect is.

people have growing with HId lighting since 1904? been growing with leds since 1960? really? apologies for the disrespect.....just smoked my breakfast.

defoliation question..... anyone familiar with it?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member