Anybody Want To Double Their Yield?- Desertrat's Top and Prune?

desertrat said:
psychological projection is such an interesting phenomenon

so, what am i supposed to do? you point to your botany knowledge and i point to pictures. what are you saying? that i did something other than what i'm claiming? how about opening your mind a little and asking yourself just how did what you see in front of you happen, not deny that what you see is real. then we'd be having a real discussion.
Click to expand...

haha quite a phenomenon indeed.

haha i must admit, that even though Uncle Ben is right, you can not deny truth in front of you. like you said, "i point to pictures."

perhaps it does "lower" yield in some cases -- but i would hope to believe that in most... ahhh what the hell do i know.
 
desertrat said:
do i really need to explain to an adult that there are limits to a good thing? perhaps you should save sophomoric arguments for sophomores. you need to bump up your game an additional half decade's worth of advanced education and two decades of scientific experience if you want to have a debate with me. so, tell me again, why are my eyes lying to me and i'm not getting twice the yield i actually think i am? oh, that's right, it's because you say it's impossible. works for me. not.
Click to expand...

haha you kill me desertrat -- haha i love this argument.
 
Waiakeauka said:
I think that Desertrat pictures holds more water then UB theory. UB is a great contributor to the forum but sometimes you have to realize that not all new techniques are bad and that some actually work. Thanks desertrat!
Click to expand...

yes sir. great point waiakeauka.

its not that uncle ben is not right, just that there comes a time and place to re-write these man-made laws and theories that so many follow rigidly, and to redevelop the techniques according to the occurring experiences and knowledge that HAS been founded upon the old techniques and theories.

the highest cannot stand without the lowest.
 
Hotwired said:
I was j/k bro. I only do clones so my leaves are already in an offset pattern. If I took 'em off I wouldn't have any left 8)
Click to expand...


haha you soma bitch!!! haha i believed you too. haha well thank Christ you were lying! hahaha.


hahahaha and i love your signature! hahaha!
 
stow,
yes poor analogy. plants' basic botany hasn't changed in millions of years. a game of hockey changes by the second, so yes, many different approaches are totally valid and necessary to succeed. it's great that people are innovating and trying different things. it's helpful and encouraged, but it must be understood within a scientific framework. we are talking about science>biology>botany>horticulture>cultivation of soft wood annuals>cannabis cultivation. forums are complicated because they're part show & tell, part advice column, and a tiny bit of applicable REAL scientific data. a bit of criticism is necessary to balance the perspective for the uninitiated. we owe it to them to present our findings in a well thought out and conclusive manner. don't take it personally. we're just trying to increase the credibility of using forums by providing REAL scientific data.

don't confuse effects in spite of circumstances with effects because of circumstances.
by the way, what NHL team did you play for?
 
don't confuse effects in spite of circumstances with effects because of circumstances.
Click to expand...

this is exactly why you repeat experiments and encourage others to try to duplicate your results as well. a consistently repeatable result is because of circumstances while a single instance could be the result of anything. so far, i've personally seen this technique work twice, and hope to have more evidence within a couple of months.
 
plebean said:
stow,
yes poor analogy. plants' basic botany hasn't changed in millions of years. a game of hockey changes by the second, so yes, many different approaches are totally valid and necessary to succeed. it's great that people are innovating and trying different things. it's helpful and encouraged, but it must be understood within a scientific framework. we are talking about science>biology>botany>horticulture>cultivation of soft wood annuals>cannabis cultivation. forums are complicated because they're part show & tell, part advice column, and a tiny bit of applicable REAL scientific data. a bit of criticism is necessary to balance the perspective for the uninitiated. we owe it to them to present our findings in a well thought out and conclusive manner. don't take it personally. we're just trying to increase the credibility of using forums by providing REAL scientific data.

don't confuse effects in spite of circumstances with effects because of circumstances.
by the way, what NHL team did you play for?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying one method is correct, and the other is wrong. I was simply pointing out that UB discounted someone elses experiences off hand by playing the "basic botany" card. It's fine to disagree with someone, but please do so in a way that does not come off in such an egotistical dick-swinging manner. I would venture to say, like everything else in life, that the art of marijuana cultivation is an ever evolving science. There are methods that are used today, that will be obsolete in 20 years as our understanding of the plant evolves.

This forum seems to be part knowledge, and part ego stroking for some.
 
stowandgrow said:
I'm not saying one method is correct, and the other is wrong. I was simply pointing out that UB discounted someone elses experiences off hand by playing the "basic botany" card. It's fine to disagree with someone, but please do so in a way that does not come off in such an egotistical dick-swinging manner. I would venture to say, like everything else in life, that the art of marijuana cultivation is an ever evolving science. There are methods that are used today, that will be obsolete in 20 years as our understanding of the plant evolves.

This forum seems to be part knowledge, and part ego stroking for some.
Click to expand...

You can clearly tell them boots are too big for that monkey .
 
Looks like a classic case of education blinding the eyes that are attached to a bright mind. One time they lectured in universities about the world being flat, now we have photos that prove otherwise, but I suppose someone still argues that it is... IMHO, sometimes we need to stop and look around to make sense of the world, and stop basing everything we think upon the information we were spoon fed by some over priced, over crowded classroom.
Heres an idea: If you're so sure this method doesn't work, why don't you try it and debunk the method? THAT is how "simple science" works.

All I know is I saw a picture with 14 donkey dicks on it...FOURTEEN. Even the lower small buds were growing like colas. I would be crazy to not try this.
 
stowandgrow said:
I'm not saying one method is correct, and the other is wrong. I was simply pointing out that UB discounted someone elses experiences off hand by playing the "basic botany" card. It's fine to disagree with someone, but please do so in a way that does not come off in such an egotistical dick-swinging manner. I would venture to say, like everything else in life, that the art of marijuana cultivation is an ever evolving science. There are methods that are used today, that will be obsolete in 20 years as our understanding of the plant evolves.

This forum seems to be part knowledge, and part ego stroking for some.
Click to expand...

Sorry, ya can't argue with botany no matter how hard you try.
 
OK! Here's the thing. UncleBen and DesertRat are arguing the same thing. Uncle Ben says botany, desertrat provides pictures. DESERTRAT SAID, "...prune every other fan leaf in a staircase pattern. this slows the growth of the main stem and for some reason stimulates the growth of secondary branches."

That is botany UB. If you trim the fan leaves of the main stem, then the light and energy will go to the leaves that are left on the plant, aka the SECONDARY BRANCHING. That is simple botany. I understand the more foliage, the more light being absorbed, but if you cut off the source of light absorption off of one main stem, then the light/energy will go to the other parts of the plant, because there is more foliage there to absorb the light. Because there are now more spaces for light to penetrate. So you guys are all arguing the same thing. It will make colas like that because of simple botany.
 
Uncle Ben said:
Sorry, ya can't argue with botany no matter how hard you try.
Click to expand...

OK, so answer me this: I've read through "Uncle Bens topping technique to get 2 or 4 main colas", so how does that differ from a botany standpoint in comparison to what desertrat is doing? I've read on here you saying that mother nature put the leaves there for a reason, so why mess with it ........................... did mother nature intend on you whacking your plant in half??

Your way of manipulating the plant seems to work for you, so why are you so certain that other methods (that you've never tried) won't be equally as succesful?
 
"Defoliation, high yield technique"? Stupid is as stupid does. Leave it to some newbie stoner to pluck the very unit that produces bud and try to glamorize such stupidity in a thread. And as expected, folks fall for the gimmick because someone said it works as the thread swells to 100 pages, hah!

Regarding my technique, it's done while the plant is very young as a training technique, not as a butchering technique for IC Mag noobs that can't find their grow butts with both hands.

I mean...come on people, look at this poor excuse for bonafide culture. These gardens look like crap. https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=174163&page=19

peenchay peenchay,
UB
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTR
I have to agree with UB here. There's a lot of thing that influence growth, and a lot of things that inhibit. I like new school growing as well, but I'm not going to try can debate the fact MJ has been grown for longer than I've been alive While topping and pruning techniques do have their place, its most only beneficial in an indoor environment, and I'm almost positive if you compared the results side by side it wouldn't be that much difference. Plants are somewhat limited in their capability, and even if you managed a technique to "encourage" more growth, it would require more nutrients to be possible. So in essence it's not quite doubling the yield, but upping the possibility.

Now, that doesn't mean the technique isn't beneficial, especially indoor. Under a limited or unidirectional light source (unlike the sun that moves) an even canopy means more than having "more" foilage. Who's really to say that all of that foilage is getting hit by light, thus undergoing intense photosynthesis, that would impact growth.... compared to limited photosynthesis which is good for sustainability. No different than seedling with no leaves and slow growth, or an LST or SCROG with crazy growth.

I do honestly see desertrats method as having substantial weight and reason. Am I willing to try it? No, Not quite yet. Mainly because I believe while it works it would come at a sacrifice of veg time. Is that wrong? Absolutely not. It's just not the way I'm used to, or like to grow.
 
Well as most folks might know I am one of the members that yells the loudest about not triming leaves

But I also love a good experiment, so I am going to do this to a plant in my next grow, I wish I could say it would be a side by side but alas I intend to do different things to each plant as I will be experimenting with 3 different techniques

will be awhile but I will report back once it starts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top