But what about lowers testing lower in thc? The healthier tops thc numbers are usually significantly higher. If the lowers were healthier they would not be lowers.
1 Like
This is all true I agree. Itās genetics the genetics dictate potency. But wait if you grow it a little better than me it might be a % or two higher in thc. So do genetics only dictate potency or also environment? If you leave the plants in 24hr light potency will go way down because they will never flower. So maybe it is just genetic with a little phenotypical expression and environment. But what about trimming/pruning? You canāt really say they have nothing to do with potency either. If I manually remove all flower sites and leave the leaves I bet the plant will continue to live out the rest of its life but I will have effectively dropped the thc % like a brick. So maybe if all of this is true small increases of potency can be had by optimizing plant production by selective trimming/pruning. Not saying itās a fact but something we should look more into.
3 Likes
Sorry but these examples donāt have any sense. They are mecanical ways to donāt smoke anything, it donāt change the fact than the plant have its chemotype hardcoded both in quality and timeline : cannabinoids balance and strenght.
Lets take it in an another reasonnable strange way ^^ If itās relatively easy to fail your yield (vegetal mass productivity) with bad cares and/or decisions, to fail your potency (expression of chemotype) is much harder. You have to truly do everything to fail it from the start to end. And even with a bad drying, it still hard. Many feel shame to admit it, but how many of us have quick dryed a bud ? Hays smoking yes, but generally we do that for potency lol
This is because theyr are complementary process but in staying sequential. In first the plant set the vegetal mass in function of your cares (so trimming/pruning, the basics of a SCROG technic and strategy for the example) during the majority of weeks under flowering photoperiod. Then the last weeks the plant āfillā this vegetal mass with āpotencyā (i donāt enter in details because it appear enough complicated for now) and end this sequence with a short period of maturation than look like a wave in a graph. Low levels of cannabinoids, apogee, then decrease with the senescence and the death of the specimen.
I agree than sometimes itās necessarry to decypher difficult concepts of optimization, but at a certain point everybody must do his homework and to read documentations. Specially when this documentation is offered like a fast food menu.
It avoid the eternal loops to discuss always about the same things over and over : āmust i finish my flowering stage in darkā, āis the seed shape deciding sex of the specimens lolā, āis boiling the roots increase potencyā, āis peeing in my pot boost the plantsā ā¦ avoiding bad comprehension of the plant permit to put the priority to treat advanced subject : how to prepare my plant for cups, how professionnals flush theyr plants, is the PAR judgement strain-dependant, what is electroculture, can i SOG outdoor ā¦ etc
Not angry at all, just frustrated.
3 Likes
Look at the pictures Iāve posted of my low watt. exactly what I was shooting forā¦ Mostly tops. Bingo! Forcing the plant to pump them up with goodies! If the plant has limited flowers to throw those goodies where do they goā¦ To remaining flowers 
Finally found someone open-minded enough to catch on. So often we set our knowledge in stone not willing to expand in it.
God I love a healthy debate!!! This is exactly my point if you limit the flowers where does all the remaining goodies goā¦ To the stems. Leach out into the soilā¦ Gotta go somewhere
Love all the debate @LemonadeJoe @5o5love @Gaz29 @Fuel @casperdeigh. This is what Iām trying to achieve. Under less than ideal lighting (cheap ass āBurpsā ) knowing that lighting affects quality can I remove just enough flowing areas to force my girls to pump all excess to remaining flowers uping their overall potency. I believe yes and I believe Iāve got the proof in product. And in around 30 Iāll be able to confirm at least to me and my closet friendsā¦ Still up in the air if Iāll share with @Hoodini 
1 Like
If you keep clipping tester buds you wonāt have any to share haha 
1 Like
Other than that top not one moreā¦ I havenāt even dropped any more lights on them. But itās going to be hard. That little sample rock me and my roommate heās very happy and canāt wait. We might have one more fishing trip up there soon. Who knows I might drop byā¦ And share a little.
1 Like
what trick did you use ?
Iām running cheap low watt burpsā¦ Iāve removed lower flowers leaving only the top third in attempt to direct as much goodies as possible to those flowers. Iām hoping by doing so Iāll increase density and overall potency. Knowing especially in low watt grows lower flowers only rob goodies from tops and donāt typically produce the highest potency flowers. Basically trying to channel those sugars and goodies to the tops. Why direct those to less than desirable fruits.
2 Likes
I get what your saying I really do but no one is trying to morph a low potency plant into a high potency plant. Thatās not what homie is trying to figure out. Heās trying to beat thc potency of one plant with that of another that has been manicured of the same genotype. Heās not going to change the genetic makeup of the plant just cut away certain parts at certain times. Plants donāt come with a set amount of thc that will automatically just pop out at some point it does not work that way. Yes the plants are ran by hormones dictated by dna and that does not change but hormones are also affected by stress, light, Uv etcā¦ So by removing weaker node and bud cites in veg as well as flower total amount of thc vs plant matter can be altered. This is not just a fantasy this comes with mounds of data. Tops test higher for potency than bottoms. They do so because of better light environment etc. bottoms would not be bottoms if they were tops they would be tops. Even if you supplied the bottoms with equal light environment etc would they be the same as the tops? Maybe maybe not tho. Cause bottoms donāt naturally get the same hormones thatās why we top in veg to alter yield by dividing tops just as you would top an apple tree to change its primary leader branching. So talking cut dried flower potency a plant with many tops spread evenly will produce more thc (maybe a comically small amount but still something) than a plant allowed to grow with less manicuring.
1 Like
Not at allā¦ Canāt take dirt weed and change it to Kush. Iām looking to get the highest potential by forcing stacking of nutrients to mains by eliminating growth in areas that will not produce higher THC etc etc etc. I am using an already potent strain. The idea is simple. Grandma had an old orange tree in the back yard she used similar techniques and the tree blessed her with some of the sweetest fruits. If the trees become to over burdened the fruits suffered providing less sweet oranges. At least thatās what Grandma believed.
2 Likes
Letās say than iām working on my karma.
1] I take in count the title of this thread, not the drift belong the conversation, and all eventual people than are starting in the game than will attracted by this too sexy title.
-
I donāt want they think than removing stems improve potency, or the reverse.
-
I donāt want than they think than outdoor "californians baobab style " trees are necessary low potency plants, and short-one-cola plants are necessary high potency plants. As a SOG fanatic, iām supposed to push this but i will not.
-
I donāt want than they think than potency is the same thing than yield, and than it can be managed the same way.
-
I donāt want than they think than adapting the environment to give decent and rationnal cares to a plant, is an advanced and a complicated technic.
Thatās really all my concern with this subject.
2]
No, itās just correcting afterward a mistake youāve done. Nothing else.
And THC potential is not a ātankā with defined quantity. Itās an enzymatic transformation.
Letās be more āimaginativeā to share this concept in simple words.
You have twos cars. One with a 100 liters tank (genotype), the other with 50 liters of same fuel.
The 100 liters car have a inline 4 engine. The 50 liters have a V6.
So each one is a different model (phenotype).
Even if the 100 liters have more fuel (richest genotype), he will never develop the torque (THC) of the 50 liters car (better phenotype for THC). But if you swap the engines, you get the jackpotā¦
Breeding is to be able to have an influence on the engines and to swap them : replacing carburators, changing cylinders diameters, using forged pistons, reinforcing the motricity parts etc ā¦ in function of the tank you got.
Growing is just driving the car. If you drive the inline 4 like the V6, you will just kill the whole car fast. If you drive the V6 like the inline 4, you will just not exploit all the torque. Cruising with a V6, why not ! Thatās not a shame at all.
3]
I respect the fact than you donāt believe it, and than you donāt believe the extensive documentation writed on it. You can shit on people than writed it too, i donāt really care. No problemo, but you have to understand than saying āit does not work that wayā is totally outside a personnal preference than youāre assuming. Itās dictatorial.
Because yes, it does work like this. This is not an overall yield or a grammer/day ratio than you can fail with bad cares. A potent line will be ever potent, no matter if it grow in extrem conditions. I repeat again, we are not theorizing and speaking about advanced technic of optimization here, but just cutting stems.
This is more than a fantasy, itās a terrible responsability to let new growers to think that. Your 'bottoms" are not less potent, and without annoying you with books to read, any SCROGger can attest that with the nuggets in hands.
If indoor the upper part of your plant is more matured than the lower part, you just have failed to give an optimal environment to your plant in regard of the equipment and the method youāre using (maybe itās time to think about SCROG lol).
We are not talking about trees of five meters, and even in outdoor conditions a partially matured plant is a problem of exposition and density than can be improved without any rocket science. Just to known the cardinal points of your crop and to manage your density of plants with it. We do that since our civilization discovered the agronomy, damned. Before we ever knew what was a ārocketā or even a āscienceā.
You have totally the right to grow in a no optimal conditions lol and you can enjoy it this way, but making it a biased rocket science is a non sense. Advanced improvements methods are numerous and can be mixed to fit your tastes, from the simpler to the real rocket science. But no one say to you than itās an obligation to enjoy your grow and share your pleasure. No one.
Not maybe damned hell, go just SCROG or SOG in decent conditions.
First, cannabis is not a tree and itās an annual. Our plant is naturally programmed to die within a year, so its genetical code is made this way. Its ressources.
Second, an apple is a tree than take at least a decade to being productive. Cannabis less than twos months for the faster, and to express its full potential of yield.
So no, cannabis is not a vegetable, cannabis is not a tree, cannabis is not an animal and the agronomics rules are allready there since centuries with hemp production. No need to reinvent the wheel, just to shut down the TV and to read the books on it.
And for your big blend of everything about the hormons, i will give you a cardinal point : learn what is an apical meristem and learn how work the phillotaxy of cannabis. From this understanding i can promise you than you will be able to get results than are totally against what youāre actually thinking. And massive SCROG than make cry your friends.
NO. Enzyms produce THC. When you cut a stem, you reduce the total amount of THC than can be produced by the plant because you just close a āfactoryā.
What iām trying with all my soul to explain here, itās than these factory need workers. If you donāt furnish enough workers, you have to be less hungry from the start and to manage the size of your factories in function of your possibilities and your goals. Correcting a mistake over and over each round, is not improvement. Itās stagnation.
2 Likes
@Fuel Have you ever been to the store and bought a less than sweet oranges, how about tomatoes or anything mass crop produced and the quality isnāt that of a garden grown tomatoes etc etc etc. Bet you have. Why do you think that would be. And Iām sure you will respond in a few days with some huge rebuttal. Simple because in the name of production āquantityā is placed over āqualityā to limit loss in transit to market pick before peek ripping. So keep ripping on me it will only show how closed minded and fragile your ego really is. Tried to be nice and respectful but at this point your declaration removing ādiplomacyā gives me the ability to let you damage that high pedestal you have placed yourself upon. Here we go! Warned
Sorry @5o5love apparently this subject seems far to complex for @Fuelā¦ Ever bought a 
from the store and it wasnāt very sweet. Ever wonder why? But this guy is rightā¦ Hard coded!
Yep, you finished me with your tomatoes. My empire is falling.
I can see than all is said, have fun my lord.
Still stuck on a basic understandingā¦ Care and targeted pruning does not boast quality of ANY fruit, nut, berry, or veggies. All hard coded and thatās all there is to it right? See how easy that was and Iām still using diplomacy . You do realize that anger has a way of getting in the way of logic. Are you feeling trapped now stuck in stone on your opinionā¦ I mean ALL science is hard set right. Only to those stuck in general science consensus and they have never had their science proven wrong. Science is always rightā¦ Never to be proven wrong. Science is not wrong itās our understanding that is proven wrong time and time again and we never learnā¦ Do we? Sad @Fuel
I suppose that youāve never bought a bag of dirt weed taken those seeds and produced a superior product than that of the quality youāve harvested the seeds fromā¦ Well with your greater understanding I wouldnāt suggest that you try. Same goes for Kush or any other strainā¦ You may not be able to take dirt weed to Kush but you can take Kush to dirt weed! And yet I bet you still canāt see the relevance of my statement!
No dude, even though you say youāre being diplomatic, thatās not really being diplomatic.
In the case of anecdotal evidence with unknown variables, science and general consensus always retains more weight. Itās not easy but it is up to the theorist to prove their theories as backed by a reproducible scientific methodology with suitable controls. Sincerely, the scientific method.
2 Likes