Is there actual science behind plants having a limited amount of energy to dedicate to buds?

It's commonly recommended to remove a good portion of lower growth so the plant can direct energy to the biggest tops. Plus those lowers often don't amount to much but that's another topic.

This sounds like it's assuming plants only have so much 'energy' for a certain amount of buds. Are lower bud sites really robbing the tops of energy and size?

Say someone vegges a plant to 32 tops and they all turn into fat buds. Would the colas have been even fatter if they only grew the plant to 16 or 8 tops, or is this 'energy' based on a steady supply of nutrients and light rather than some limit the plants may have?

I think it's not a common practice with outdoor cultivation. And I remember that MiamiMango didn't do it in his indoor facility, which I think had ample light levels down to the "lowers", maybe side/horizontal supplement.

Look at many veggies , for example tomato’s it’s better to remove many shoots/suckers to make a dominate energy on what u want and need aka more fruit. Biomass is not my focused agenda but everyone has their own views and agenda

good example of pro’s and con’s of doing such on tomato’s, very good example and similiar to cannabis on why

compassionateExotic said:

Look at many veggies , for example tomato’s it’s better to remove many shoots/suckers to make a dominate energy on what u want and need aka more fruit. Biomass is not my focused agenda but everyone has their own views and agenda

good example of pro’s and con’s of doing such on tomato’s, very good example and similiar to cannabis on why

Tomato Suckers: What Should You Really Do With Them?

To prune, or not to prune? That is the question. Like many gardening tips on the internet, there is a heated debate around tomato suckers. Should you keep them? Should you get rid of them?

www.tomatobible.com

Click to expand...

Tomatoes are fruits, not flower.

Dude are u serious ? lol Yeah cause cannabis isn’t a fruiting based plant, gotta grow that leafy biomass

Never seen any definitive scientific study, mostly broscience or anectdotal evidence.

It's a concept that comes from people playing the telephone game with basic benefits of pruning. Better airflow, less larfy under developed bud, and better energy source to energy sink ratio (usually expressed as bigger tops).

Bit of a tangent... "science" just means "the study of." The scientific method is the best method of study and documentation, but it has to be done well to matter. I take the anecdotes of someone with 40 years experience over a study with a small sample size and questionable methods. All of this is to say the "real science" you're looking for might not be in a paper, but you can look for pictures and documented grows using both methods and judge for yourself.

Tolerance Break said:

It's a concept that comes from people playing the telephone game with basic benefits of pruning. Better airflow, less larfy under developed bud, and better energy source to energy sink ratio (usually expressed as bigger tops).

Bit of a tangent... "science" just means "the study of." The scientific method is the best method of study and documentation, but it has to be done well to matter. I take the anecdotes of someone with 40 years experience over a study with a small sample size and questionable methods. All of this is to say the "real science" you're looking for might not be in a paper, but you can look for pictures and documented grows using both methods and judge for yourself.

Click to expand...

amen!

My problem is I see so many of these anectdotal suppositions that are flat out wrong, (hanging plants upside down, boiling the roots, keeping plants in the dark for 72 hours prior to harvest, flushing to remove nutrients, etc). I want to see unbiased studies, with no Dunning-Kruger effect or experimentor bias (double blind, peer reviewed).

@Phytoplankton

compassionateExotic said:

@Phytoplankton

Click to expand...

Not convinced, lots of general terms, but no actual measurements, i.e., I want to see two (actually more like 1000) plants grown side by side in the same soil, under the same conditions, one heavily pruned/lolipopped/SOG, one not, then measure the quantity (weight), quality, (terpenes and THC content). Then I'll be convinced. I've done it both ways and have found neglible differences (anectdotal). Is some pruning good? Yes, opening up the understory for better airflow, removing dying leaves, plucking or tucking a few leaves to open up the canopy, no problem. But even then, same thing, I see little difference, except for diminishing mold/rot potential.

Edit: I can't see how removing functioning "solar panels" from the plant helps it. If those leaves were a drain, they'd be self pruned by the plant.

Phytoplankton said:

My problem is I see so many of these anectdotal suppositions that are flat out wrong, (hanging plants upside down, boiling the roots, keeping plants in the dark for 72 hours prior to harvest, flushing to remove nutrients, etc). I want to see unbiased studies, with no Dunning-Kruger effect or experimentor bias (double blind, peer reviewed).

Click to expand...

I agree about all the bro science that still floats around, but studies don't really do much good, either, because there are just too many different types of plants and different ways they grow. A lot of these things just have to come from hands-on experience with the types of plants a given grower prefers. If I want to know how to grow HUGE plants, then I need to start doing what people like the Mendo Dope Boys do in order to achieve that. But what if I don't care about high-yielding plants and, instead, prefer small, scraggly plants that wreak like a skunk? That's probably going to be a different approach. And then there's all the people who include auto flowering cannabis to be synonymous with regular marijuana -even though it grows completely differently and looks completely different. Since all these things are so jumbled now, there would almost have to be a study done on each and every hybrid plant....and even then, there are so many phenotypes within given hybrid....The knowledge has to come from trying things and seeing for yourself. I confess that I bought into a lot of the BS for a long time, too.

tstick said:

I agree about all the bro science that still floats around, but studies don't really do much good, either, because there are just too many different types of plants and different ways they grow. A lot of these thing just have to come from hands-on experience with the types of plants a given grower prefers. If I want to know how to grow HUGE plants, then I need to start doing what people like the Mendo Dope Boys do in order to achieve that. But what if I don't care about high-yielding pants and, instead, prefer small, scraggly plants that wreak like a skunk? That's probably going to be a different approach. And then there's all the people who include auto flowering cannabis to be synonymous with regular marijuana -even though it grows completely differently and looks completely different. Since all these things are so jumbled now, there would almost have to be a study done on each and every hybrid plant....and even then, there are so many phenotypes within given hybrid....The knowledge has to come from trying things and seeing for yourself. I confess that I bought into a lot of the BS for a long time, too.

Click to expand...

This exactly...

tstick said:

because there are just too many different types of plants and different ways they grow.

Click to expand...

That's why we need open university research into this. The taxonomists, geneticists, botanists, chemists, pharmacologists, mathematicians and computer scientists et. al. This is going to be a heavy lift requiring many different fields all working on their part of the puzzle. We didn't have the ability to do this with opium so it was reduced to a single form solution for pain. Hopefully with cannabis we have the sophistication and tools we can utilize the full profile of the drug vs extracting or synthesizing a single, simpler and potentially less effective solution.

“It all depends”
It’s all energy man
I think the energy that went into the larf at the bottom could have been redistributed to the location of the big nugz at the top.

The plant is going to distribute its "energy" aka glucose produced by the photosynthesis process to the entirety of the plant, by removing parts of the plant that either don't get good light, airflow,etc you are allowing the parts that do get good light, airflow to receive all energy. It's that simple.

I don't know if they are going to get more energy than they initially would, but I'd imagine the plant tries to somewhat evenly distribute energy, so maybe it does lead to a higher energy to those sites than they would have originally received?

We don't need any studies on how to grow a plant. We have that shit down. I'm another one coming from a tomato perspective. Keep 2 or 3 good stems and lay waste to the rest. Flowers, baby tomatoes, and all. Same with weed. Chop the small buds that aren't getting light and dictate exactly who yo Daddy is.

I'm stoned.

Yeah! You don't need a degree to grow 16 big fat colas, and produce the best around! (that's cool af though if you do!) It's basic biology, and... being daddy. Sometimes you gotta be strict with the discipline. Bust out the monkey wrench, and bend them over once in awhile if they don't want to listen. Carefully enough you don't leave any marks though. Give them a lollipop now and then. Eventually, they'll see the light..

I'm a very new cannabis grower but have been growing plants in general for a long time (gardens and house plants).

From my reading I subscribe to a basic theory that goes something like this. When you start flower you are on a timer, the plant is actively dying and the plant can only produce so much whatever (sugars?). The plant will put it where it thinks it is most beneficial to catch pollen and produce seeds ensuring future generations, which may not be what you think is best i.e. it'll produce lower larf. You can help the plant put it in more beneficial spots (by your definition) by removing sucker branches that will never hit the canopy and will only produce larf. I only remove sucker branches.

I have never clipped a fan leaf that they plant hasn't already decided itself that it didn't want and has removed everything it has wanted from it i.e. the leaf is yellowing and touching it makes it drop off. I feel removing good fan leaves is robbing production capabilities and reserve that the plant will move elsewhere during flower when it decides the time is right.

All of this is dependent on proper air flow, if you need to remove fan leaves to achieve proper air movement, that is a different story.

All of this is just small room scale, four plants, you big boys are in a different world.

And all of it is just my stupid theories. One day I'd like to run some side by sides running my way versus full lollypopping or whatever, just not quit there yet.

To your question, if you do 8 colas instead of 32, will the colas be bigger? Probably? with proper plant steering. Will the end weight between 8 colas or 32 colas essentially be the same? Well now, that's an interesting question.

I think there is a fine line of plant steering to produce buds and not larf, and robbing the plant of what it needs it needs to produce the things it produces.

/end ramble