Just because a buddy of mine, just literally pointed out an author to me, I thought this might support my post. I really like that the author supports the idea that instead of saying leaves are "storage" for nutrients, he says chlorophyll is used to make new plant matter and/or new chlorophyll, in different areas. It does this by "photoexitation", one electron at a time, and makes "photosynthate", or plantfood out of it. "Defoilating or de-leafing is one of the most misunderstood techniques of drug Cannabis cultivation. In the mind of the cultivator,several reasons exist for removing leaves. Many feel that large shade leaves draw energy from the flowering plant, and therefore the flowering clusters will be smaller. It is felt that by removing the leaves, surplus energy will be available, and large floral clusters will be formed. Also, some feel that inhibitors of flowering, synthesized in the leaves during the long noninductive days of summer, may be stored in the older leaves that were formed during the noninductive photoperiod. If these inhibitor-laden leaves are removed, the plant will proceed to flower, and maturation will be accelerated. Large leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small atrophied floral clusters may begin to develop if they receive more light. In actuality, few if any of the theories behind defoilatin or de-leafing give any indication of validity. Indeed, leafing possibly serves to defeat its original purpose. Large 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 sub-stances. They also create shade, but at the same time they are collecting valuable solar energy and producing foods that will be used during the floral development of the plant. Premature removal of leaves may cause stunting, because the potential for photosynthesis is reduced. As these leaves age and lose their ability to carry on photo-synthesis they turn chloro tie (yellow) and fall to the ground. In humid areas care is taken to remove the yellow or brown leaves, because they might invite attack by fungus. During chlorosis the plant breaks down substances, such as chlorophylls, and translocates the molecular components to a new growing part of the plant, such as the flowers. Most Cannabis plants begin to lose their larger leaves when they enter the flowering stage, and this trend continues until senescence. It is more efficient for the plant to reuse the energy and various molecular components of existing chlorophyll than to synthesize new chlorophyll at the time of flowering. During flowering this energy is needed to form floral clusters and ripen seeds. Removing large amounts of leaves will interfere with the metabolic balance of the plant. If this metabolic change occurs too late in the season it could interfere with floral development and delay maturation. If any floral inhibitors are removed, the intended effect of accelerating flowering will be counteracted by metabolic upset in the plant. Removal of shade leaves does facilitate more light reaching the center of the plant, but if there is not enough food energy produced in the leaves, the small internal floral clusters will not grow any larger. Leaf removal may also cause sex reversal resulting from a metabolic change." "Marijuana Botany" ~Clarke
This Querkle hasn't slowed down at all since being defoliated last week! I leave a few leaves on at the tops if they are external colas, but 95% of leaves got removed at week 3 flower:
"Most Cannabis plants begin to lose their larger leaves when they enter the flowering stage, and thistrend continues until senescence." Um no, it doesn't work like this. I don't think the person that wrote that has the first clue. Take a plant and defoliate it then post your results. Enough with the book stuff. Make the rubber meet the road, fish or cut bait.
Robert C Clarke works at Hortapharm B.V. in Amsterdam. He's a well known author and very knowledgeable grower and researcher of cannabis. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Connell_Clarke I've defoliated a lot, including schwazz, and I do lollipop currently, but not for larger yield. Instead for personal reasons as I cant bend over. Here's a photo of 2 clones in the same grow room, both lollipopped the same, same recirculated reservoir water, same nutrients, same lighting, cut from the same mother, and the picture taken at the same distance from the plants. I didn't even have the room to take the picture of the full plant with leaves. Both yielded well, but the one with leaves definitely had more yield, by far. I realize this is only two plants, but this is all I could find documented. I have a study plant later this year, on a larger scale, and it will be filmed, and posted.
Were the plants the same size to begin with Dumme? Unless you weighed them it's a guess, and no way to compare root development which impacts yield. BTW I know from your avatar that the name is pronounced "dummy" but I can't quit match the sound with the source so my mind rejects that pronunciation and replaces it with "do me" which is no better. So every time i think of your screen name I get a mental hiccup that leaves me feeling like "oh I'll deal with it later" I have never heard the reasons for defoliating listed above, but they sound a little suspect. So does clarke's rebuttal. However I must say that I am not to keen on complete defoliation. I have seen MGJ's excellent results from this, but he's an alien and I'm an earthling. My own results with what little experimentation I have done is hardly conclusive. And I know damn well the plant makes those big fans for a reason, and that there is stuff going on in the leaves that is beneficial to the plant. However I also believe that my growing environment and style of growing requires some manipulation of the plant, which includes some defoliating. The way I imagine it is that although the big fan I cut is no longer feeding the sinks nearby, the many layers of fan leaves below it that are now getting better light are MORE productive than before, and so in effect I selectively remove fan leaves to re-distribute the location of plant food kitchens, shifting new growth energy away from the tops (which are closest to the light) and to the lower buds which are now un-shaded. I also chop off a lot of new growth that is low, just because it takes energy from the plant to grow that stuff, and in the end it never produced good bud in a SOG setting. Since the root system is extensive enough to support a larger plant, after removing lower shit I imagine there's excess root capacity for the remaining plant. My theory is that the energy the plant would have spent on growing the lower stuff can now be used to grow bigger buds. If my back hurts the last thing i want to do is trim out the understory. How exactly does it help a bad back? Makes harvesting easier?
As a devotee of R.C. Clarke, I could have quoted you that entire passage. (Look in the GK library of stickies and you'll find a link to his entire work...unless it was lost in the upgrade.) Clarke's views are the entire basis of how I garden. They're old but proven true for this farmer time and time again. But we still have the problem of real world application. It's demonstrated fact that increased light penetration increases the quality of lower buds. Anecdotally this has been true in my gardens for over a decade. It proves out in income for those of us who do this for a living. Gardens in which I don't trim undesirable branches (the lower 30% and some weak inside branching) cost me more in help trimming and produce fewer marketable chunky buds. The upside is I get a shit ton of quality trim for extracts and cooking. For several years I grew under light arrays composed of 6-150w HPS for even coverage adhering to the principle of even coverage being preferred over penetration. Boy was I wrong. I could grow massive cola's, but everything else was shitty popcorn. Went to 600w HPS with 30% fewer watts per sq/ft and had an immediate increase in overall yield. Began pruning unwanted branching and again had an immediate increase in overall yield. This tells me as a gardener, in my garden, some level of pruning plus deeper light penetration increases usable bud. This also tells me that specific budsites require specific light to fully mature which is why it's a good idea to move and rotate your plants on a regular basis. I see it on the scales, I feel it my pocket book, I see it in my gardens. Again, the rub isn't that increasing penetration is bad, it's good. It's at what point does it become counterproductive stress? There's a reason for this phenomenon and I can't say I understand exactly what is happening with the plant physiology. I know Clarke covers this somewhat obliquely in an earlier book when he talks about the value of removing entire branches vs single leafs....Just checked our stickies and Clarke's stuff was lost. I'm thinking it was in RC Clarke's Botany and Ecology of cannabis. I'll dig around tonight and see if I can scare up a new link to his older stuff.
Found it in the book you're using, and it's almost word for word what Clarke said in his 1977 book. Here's a link to a pdf. Search Limbing if you don;t feel like reading the entire thing again. http://www.calgarycmmc.com/ebooks p q r s t u v w x y z /Robert C Clarke - Marijuana Botany - An Advanced Study.pdf //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Limbing is another common method of pruning Cannabis plants. Many small limbs will usually grow from the bottom portions of the plant, and due to shading they remain small and fail to develop large floral clusters. If these atrophied lower limbs are removed, the plant can devote more of its floral energies to the top parts of the plant with the most sun exposure and the greatest chance of pollination. The question arises of whether removing entire limbs constitutes a shock to the growing plant, possibly limiting its ultimate size. It seems in this case that shock is minimized by removing entire limbs, including proportional amounts of stems, leaves, meristems, and flowers; this probably results in less metabolic imbalance than if only flowers, leaves, or meristems were removed. Also, the lower limbs are usually very small and seem of little significance in the metabolism of the total plant. In large plants, many limbs near the central stalk also become shaded and atrophied and these are also sometimes removed in an effort to increase the yield of large floral clusters on the sunny exterior margins. Leafing is one of the most misunderstood techniques of drug Cannabis cultivation. In the mind of the cultivator, several reasons exist for removing leaves. Many feel that large shade leaves draw energy from the flowering plant, and therefore the flowering clusters will be smaller. It is felt that by removing the leaves, surplus energy will be available, and large floral clusters will be formed. Also, some feel that inhibitors of flowering, synthesized in the 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, and maturation will be accelerated. Large leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small atrophied floral clusters may begin to develop if they receive more light. In actuality, few if any of the theories behind leafing give any indication of validity. Indeed, leafing possibly serves to defeat its original purpose... ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// It's lengthy so I won't post the entire section but you get the gist. Even Clarke recognized shaded areas, areas without direct light, produced immature buds. Again, the question isn't whether pruning/defoliating to create better light penetration works. Clarke seems to believe some level of pruning is wise. It's how much is too much?
I can see some of this may be just semantics, but I don't get the same understanding when I read it. He mentions smaller undergrowth limbs due to limited light, yes, but nothing about over all larger yield of the undergrowth, because of defoliation or as he calls "leafing". Something else you may not have thought of is relative distance vs candle power. All lights dramatically lose candle power the farther they are from its light source. This would come into play if you trade larger upper leaves with lower underdeveloped leaves.
Why would you think we may not have thought of this? I mentioned it above. Like I said defoliation can be used to spread the love but an uneven canopy can render your efforts useless.
How would yield not be increased on the lowers, if they were actually filling in instead of chilling under huge fans leaves? Developed buds weigh much more than undeveloped ones. Clarke says, "Large leaves shade the inner portions of the plant, and small atrophied floral clusters may begin to develop if they receive more light." This means weight will increase, because the buds are actually forming. Even if it's only a few grams, it's still more weight on each of those clusters.
My thesis would be that trading a fully developed mature leaf from the top, which would receive the highest intensity PAR, for smaller, undeveloped leaves which are also sinks in competition with flower, at the starting time of flower development, and with lesser intensity PAR, sums to a 1 : <1 ratio, and therefor less yield, if cut.
I personally think the issue of light or PAR, to lower leaves could be better achieved by adding light with better distribution; perhaps side lighting. This would allow more photosynthetic activity to occur on lower leaves, while also maintaining the maximum photosynthesis to occur on the largest mature leaves on top.
Dude, please do me the courtesy of not assuming I didn't account for something. I been doing this awhile now and am aware of the inverse square law. Actually, assuming something like that would be esoteric knowledge to an experienced grower is more than a bit insulting. Also, my reading comprehension is more than adequate to account for semantic variables. Now, I know this may seem nit picky...but your entire article rests on the idea of specific budsites not requiring specific lighting. You cited Clarke who, while not a fan of leafing/defoliating/swazzing, is ambivalent at best on the light needs for budsites and in many areas of his work actually implies specific light is required for full bud maturation. I've asked three or four times now........If specific budsites (no I'm not confusing cola's with budsites as you previously assumed) don't require direct lighting to develop, as you stated in your article, how do you account for the phenomenon Clarke, myself, and almost every other cannabis grower experiences in their own gardens? Specifically, budsites with direct lighting developing faster and more fully. Aside......"Perhaps side lighting?" My friend....that was a "perhaps" question like 15 years ago. Look at any commercial garden in the entire world. Do they use side lighting? Do you know why they don't? Honestly thought you were going somewhere with what appeared to be an authoritative article with clear messaging and then this....... "perhaps side lighting." @Disco- those few grams per plant add up quick in larger gardens and that's what I'm talking about. Means every 9-10 plants equals an extra ounce of marketable bud.
Just to clarify, it was a excerpt, and yes, and why I put this: for any confusion. Im also sorry if the reader feels assumptions where made, as that is not at all how I feel. I am sometimes guilty of presumptions made, based on my own ignorance of the other member grow experience. I am the new guy, and don't know everyone's names yet. I call it "relative osmotic location", and referred to it in the OP. Basically, the closer the source is to the sink, the more effective the growth is. But again, I didn't make the same association from his writing, in regards with leaf removal and yield size.
Just to circle back to basics. Plants make plant food anywhere there is green, but more so in leaves. Sinks are where new growth is occurring, and draw food. The phloem carry the food around, and how the food is distributed is based on need and proximity. Also I think it is safe to say that an un-shaded bud (distance from light not withstanding) will be bigger and more developed than a shaded bud. Is this all correct?
Sounds correct to me. Edit: The only thing I would change is, instead of saying, "phloem carry the food around, and how the food is distributed is based on need and proximity", I'd rather say, phloem carry the plant food around, and how the food is distributed is based on "pressure" and proximity.
Right on. Cool. Here's the same crop as above, after my trimmings. Note the abundance of fans. this thread scared me LOL
