OldManRiver said:

I quoted your words. If you think leaves consume energy, we're not operating on the same fact base. There is a lot of stuff in pot growing that is common practice that is absolutely ignorant; coconut water, molasses, organic nutes for 'flavor', flushing, to name a few. Science doesn't support these, yet hundreds of growers believe fervently in them, despite immense evidence that these beliefs are BS. I believe defoliation is one of these.

No, I do not understand that "removing some growth increases your yield". I think saying that "light and nutrients go to the areas you didn't cut off" is fundamentally ignorant of the mechanisms by which plants consume nutrients. You seem to think that fertilizer is food for the plant, and that leaves consume scarce energy. This is ignorant of basic plant metabolism.

I have grown for quite a while, quite successfully. See the links below. There may be something to defoliation, indoors, for light penetration. Outdoors, this makes no sense. Light is not scarce, and nutrients can be abundantly supplied. There is no scarcity to remedy. From a thermodynamic standpoint, your rationale is not supported by what we know about how plants grow. It is mathematically impossible for less leaf area to produce more plant mass. There may be some behavior around bud shape, certainly there is less larf. But photons striking leaves is where plant energy comes from. If you think that leaves consume energy, you might want to read about how photosynthesis works.

I am going to do an experiment with a couple plants this summer to test. I have my thoughts, but I'll do the experiment. It's possible that the mass of accumulated science is wrong.

Click to expand...

Aqua Man said:

@BigCube I think where some of us are disagreeing with you is that it appears you are saying more pruning is better. I can only speak for myself that I do not feel this is true at all.

Selective pruning is beneficial not more pruning. Much like a feeding nutrients more is not better.

I think it's the way you are blanket stating it.

I'm sure all of us agree branches laying in the dirt should be pruned. Leaves blocking bud sites should be pruned. A plant that is so compact that it get poor air flow should be pruned. Bud sites not getting light may be beneficial to prune but not always. Topping to beak dominance may be beneficial.

Beyond this you are likely harming yields and risking plant health that will invite pests and other nasties, stunting growth for no reason etc. You see if you take the same time period and use differing pruning methods you will see more is not better. If you are not taking time of growth into account you simply cannot claim you get more yields. If you don't while in the end you may get more yields you have also spend a longer time growing the plant out and this loss of time become more and more as you increase the amount of pruning. More is not better and if that is what you are implying I will say it again. I strongly disagree with your opinion.

Added: because of the difference in light and air flow etc growing outdoors I still feel pruning is not really necessary outdoors other than for the reasons I listed and probably with the exception of a few more like fungus or other infection.

Click to expand...