Lollipopping ( Any Scientific Evidence? )

[Ninjabowler]

Hello its me again, I chimed in on the subject not long ago. A fan of trimming the lower branches. And in my case it is definatly the way to go.
Now take in mind These are bottomless pots, with roots that can go into the ground, they only get sun from high in the sky, and they don't get much wind because of all the thick trees surrounding them. But now that they leaned over from the heavy rains you can see how I trim off the lower branches while it was growing up and even took out some inner growth.
No I don't have any clones grown side by side and fed exactly the same, but I did grow in this spot without trimming and it is way better to do it. (my growing situation makes it essential) But will always be a fan of trimming up the scraggly shit on the bottoms and inside.
I know doer is going to say NUH-UH, but I do believe you will get the same yield as long as you stop trimming by the first week of flower.View attachment 3269839

I like your post but i think you over lolly popped those a little bitski :/

 

[Ninjabowler]

Technique is not science, and science is not technique.

Please make a note.

So theres science for ya, control, observation, action, observation, hypothesis. ~ninja
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3][4] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. ~wiki

Doer........your really making yourself out to look like an UB minion with only half your brain turned on. Ahem....please note the name of the thread, then read above post.

Although my rooms stay as clean as a lab 95% of the time, alas they are not one. But in those rooms i conduct scientific experiments. I observe the behaviors of my plants and i run tests on them, then i evaluate the test results and continue testing. How is that not science? If i wore a white coat and carried a clip board would you consider it science then?
I have done what some consider smart and others consider stupid to my plants and realized the consequences first hand. Some good and others bad, but the point is that i did it. And now i know, making me a better scientist.
Right now im running a test on this crop to see how it affects my production. Im running grow geared nutrients until i switch to tea for the last three weeks.
My observations so far are showing that i have retained more healthy green leaves than the last run. And they are really dark green. This is making me really optimistic for my gpw stat this time around.
Im not sure, your opinion of my lollypoping may be skewed slightly. My plants in no way at all look like that example just posted. My trimming is nothing like that charlie brown christmas tree posted above. My branches are nearly to the ground on my indy. Ive hollowed out the center of my one indica dom strain because the bud is crap in there. Its still covered in dense leave growth. They look like beach balls and about the same size. The only thing taken off is the first set of branches which dont give shit anyway and touch the ground sometimes giving another pathway for bugs, and the totally blacked out premature bud forming center of the plant. There is no massive leaf or branch losses occurring on my plants. The most vigorous lollypoping i do is to a tall wide bushy ak strain i run which gets an imaginary line drawn and everything under 25-30 % of the bottom is eliminated. This has made top growth much better and its an easy one to see since the plant is spread out well so i keep doing it. That strain is the only one that gets it hard, all the others are just what some would call plant maintenance. Strange branches that are in the center and go nowhere and are short are removed, along with bud sites that i know wont produce a useable product. For the most part my plants look like they havent even been messed with but i do take a little off the bottom for many reasons. Its the applied science that works for me.

And you, Ben, and caretaker, enough yelling already. Ya wanna convince me to never cut a leaf off then tell me some stories about your science. You know how sick i am of hearing two sides of an argument yell "wheres your published weed science" back and fourth at each other. Nobody has it and its a cop out post...like i have nothing to say or relevant stories for or against the argument. Its like shitting wrong, nobody likes that.

 

[Ninjabowler]

 

[Doer]

No one has yelled at you, yet. Maybe your mom should.

 

[Ninjabowler]

No one has yelled at you, yet. Maybe your mom should.

Yet another cop out post. Should we change the thread to boreing comebacks that have nothing to do with growing and show your IQ?

 

[Doer]

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method
...principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Observation and analysis is not even 1/2 way.

There are books and college courses, about what is and is not science.

You may call yourself whatever, however.



If you are not trying to destroy your own hypothesis with controlled experiments to prove yourself wrong, it ain't science, baby.

 

[Doer]

Yet another cop out post. Should we change the thread to boreing comebacks that have nothing to do with growing and show your IQ?

You are just arguing so I sting like a butterfly, float like a bee. So what? Does this seem like yelling to you, oh child of science?

 

[Ninjabowler]

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method
...principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Observation and analysis is not even 1/2 way.

There are books about courses, about what is and is not science.

You may call yourself whatever, however.

View attachment 3270585

If you are not trying to destroy your own hypothesis with controlled experiments to prove yourself wrong, it ain't science, baby.

I just posted a definition of science, now you are too. Nice work, you receive five points for your extra hard work on finding charts to go along with the explanation. Lol. You do realize all those charts for the scientific method are different.......right? You planned that right?
Ok so lets go through your chart together shall we...lets do chart one.

1. Ask a question - is there a way to make my ak plant produce bigger nugs?
2. Research existing sources - smash through rollitup files on plant manipulation
3. Formulate a hypothesis - if i trim the bottom buds off, according to some members, the top buds will become larger.
4. Design and conduct a study - i will grow the ak again, but lolly pop it.
5. Draw conclusions - the researcher noticed larger top cola production and an overall increase in size of buds
6. Report results - thats why im here, it works and im posting my conclusions on this site.

= science now?

 

[chuck estevez]

Any other stupid comebacks???

You cut and pasted some dudes OPINION, AND it took you forever to find it, STFU jerkoff

 

[Ninjabowler]

I just posted a definition of science, now you are too. Nice work, you receive five points for your extra hard work on finding charts to go along with the explanation. Lol. You do realize all those charts for the scientific method are different.......right? You planned that right?
Ok so lets go through your chart together shall we...lets do chart one.

1. Ask a question - is there a way to make my ak plant produce bigger nugs?
2. Research existing sources - smash through rollitup files on plant manipulation
3. Formulate a hypothesis - if i trim the bottom buds off, according to some members, the top buds will become larger.
4. Design and conduct a study - i will grow the ak again, but lolly pop it.
5. Draw conclusions - the researcher noticed larger top cola production and an overall increase in size of buds
6. Report results - thats why im here, it works and im posting my conclusions on this site.

= science now?

Or wait....no its not true science. Someone may have come into the room and tampered with the buds by injecting them with bulkeners. Or aliens, aliens made the buds bigger....every time

 

[Ninjabowler]

You cut and pasted some dudes OPINION, AND it took you forever to find it, STFU jerkoff

LOUD NOISES! Lol i agree, it was opinion and one sided, but it doesnt mean that its wrong. It may be totally right even if it is an opinion. Opinions arent wrong inherently.

 

[DCobeen]

Okay okay I will run 2 plants of C99 after this harvest. i will take clones that are the same in nodes/height ect. I will veg then sam amount of time to make sure they are both healthy and grow the same. I will then up pot them and start a side by side grow to see. I have to know if there is a difference and what they are.

Edit: I will do 2 diff strains so we know its not strain specific. Ghost and C99 will be the strains.
oh here is my c99 right now last pic was 26 days on 12/12

 

[chuck estevez]

LOUD NOISES! Lol i agree, it was opinion and one sided, but it doesnt mean that its wrong. It may be totally right even if it is an opinion. Opinions arent wrong inherently.

right, As was said before, look at the TITLE of the thread

 

[hydroMD]

not being able to form a sentence takes it all away in my book, especially when you sit there and type that you think you're more intelligent than the rest. Talk out LMFAO.

Try removing the broomstick irritating your colon. Its one thing if someone is butchering sentences that come off as completely unreadable, its another if someone is simply typing on a smart phone and hit a wrong key. If you cannot decioher a word when one letter is off your gonna have a hard run at life.


Spelling has zero to do with substance, as long as the substance can be interpreted. All you are is a grammar nazi that doesnt posess the knowledge to debate using valid points that pertain to the subject. Ppl like you dropping their whole stance on a debate to poibt out someones grammar on a cannabis forum is ridiculous!!! STFU!!!! Your dumb

 

[Ninjabowler]

I have an unpruned plant running right now. Hasnt been touched. Right next to quite a bunch of her sisters that all came from the same plant, about a month out. Ill post the harvest weight with bud size pictures. I totally forgot i had one untrimmed until DC mentioned side by side. Not science?

 

[chuck estevez]

Try removing the broomstick irritating your colon. Its one thing if someone is butchering sentences that come off as completely unreadable, its another if someone is simply typing on a smart phone and hit a wrong key. If you cannot decioher a word when one letter is off your gonna have a hard run at life.


Spelling has zero to do with substance, as long as the substance can be interpreted. All you are is a grammar nazi that doesnt posess the knowledge to debate using valid points that pertain to the subject. Ppl like you dropping their whole stance on a debate to poibt out someones grammar on a cannabis forum is ridiculous!!! STFU!!!! Your dumb

Taking over a week to comeback is as weak as your grammar,just saying

AND IT"S YOU'RE DUMB, Fucking idiot,lmfao

 

[Ninjabowler]

Try removing the broomstick irritating your colon. Its one thing if someone is butchering sentences that come off as completely unreadable, its another if someone is simply typing on a smart phone and hit a wrong key. If you cannot decioher a word when one letter is off your gonna have a hard run at life.


Spelling has zero to do with substance, as long as the substance can be interpreted. All you are is a grammar nazi that doesnt posess the knowledge to debate using valid points that pertain to the subject. Ppl like you dropping their whole stance on a debate to poibt out someones grammar on a cannabis forum is ridiculous!!! STFU!!!! Your dumb

Very funny post, grammar nazis make me laugh too. There are some good points ^^^ here lol

 

[Ninjabowler]

Taking over a week to comeback is as weak as your grammar,just saying

AND IT"S YOU'RE DUMB, Fucking idiot,lmfao

This is ironically funny too

 

[chuck estevez]

This is ironically funny too

Right, can't blame that on his phone

 

[hydroMD]

First... I am not anywhere near as experienced as you are as a horticulturist.. so please.. go easy on me. I am here to learn, not fight.

I have seen something that leads me to believe you are wrong, UB. The thing is, I have always agreed with what you say. I'm curious if what I have seen and what you know can co exist?

I grow a sativa hybrid (yep, a mutt) in my flower room. The plant will grow up past the reflectors if I do not train it or if I over veg it.
I have grown this plant in several ways, but, a few of those times I have just went ahead and topped the plant after it passes the height of the reflector (no vertical room to raise the light).
I have bent, topped, trellis, tried many things. I have also left the tops, occasionally, to grow above the reflector.. After they pass the reflector (which they will do, not turn around for the light) they stop developing density and size. They just stop.
This usually happens around wk 4. and they stay like the rest of the growth was in wk 4 while the rest of the plants continues to develop. I have never checked the resin glands to see if the weak tops develop. But I can say with 100% certainty that the tops above the reflector do not develop as well as the branches just below the light, yet, they are at the top of the plant.. or the highest point in elevation. Did you not say that that is not how it works? I have seen it and I could repeat it again


What I am wondering is...
-can what I am seeing and what you are saying both exist? Can what I am seeing really happen if you are correct about all you say in this thread?

these are some of the replies from you that conflict with what I am seeing (I think).

reasonevangelist said:
Cannabis is "sun adapted." It grows toward light, asymmetrically if needed, and the parts which touch light, develop the best.

UB said:
No they don't.
reasonevangelist said:
It's possible for the lowest branch to assume apical dominance, if it's the part of the plant receiving the best light.

UB said:
No it's not, as I articulated in quite a few of the (never ending) defoliation threads. Again, that statement reflects the mindset of most of the members at RIU

100% fact. Dominance does switch to lower branches if they recieve more light. Any branch that was dominant and grows out of light will lose its dominance to a branch getting better light.

Nature 101: those with the best chance get 1st priority.


However if a top loses dominance too late in flower, you lose a lot of time while the hormones change amd nutrient priority has re routed.