Removing larf buds on outdoor plants?

SmokeLake said:
Once the frozen bud in ice water is washed the trichomes or bubble hash yield is wet. I find the easiest way for me to use it is to freeze it then powder it with a zester and dry it on parchment paper makes a dry powder like consistency instead of traditional pressed hash type consistency.
Click to expand...
Excellent idea.

Have you tried pressing the dry powder afterwards to see if it forms the more traditional pressed hash?
 
SmokingWings said:
Excellent idea.

Have you tried pressing the dry powder afterwards to see if it forms the more traditional pressed hash?
Click to expand...

I have and its not like a traditional hash that includes some more fibrous material its like dry sift simply trichomes which can press into a block yes but to much heat and it melts into very sticky blob great for dabbing.
E96DAD9E-A4E6-4D9E-84B7-39AEB22DBB85.jpeg

Pressed briefly at low temp very clean great taste huge high but I find dab rig hot I dont enjoy it as much and I feel to stoned for an hour afterwards not complaining just not productive in day to day life.
 
SmokeLake said:
I have and its not like a traditional hash that includes some more fibrous material its like dry sift simply trichomes which can press into a block yes but to much heat and it melts into very sticky blob great for dabbing.
E96DAD9E-A4E6-4D9E-84B7-39AEB22DBB85.jpeg

Pressed briefly at low temp very clean great taste huge high but I find dab rig hot I dont enjoy it as much and I feel to stoned for an hour afterwards not complaining just not productive in day to day life.
Click to expand...
I think the chicken meant temple balls
 
SmokingWings said:
What I keep coming across when reading up about photosynthesis is that any part of the plant that is green is using light and nitrogen and more as part of the photosynthesis process. It would follow that even the buds with their single blade leaves and the sugar leaves are capable of providing the sugars that the plant needs to finish ripening. I would not be surprised if even the younger thin stems which have a green color also have a small of amount of photosynthesis happening there.
Click to expand...
Good point - if it's green and has chloroplasts, it will photosynthesize. Leaves do the heavy lifting but even a stem will generate some glucose.

Larf, to me, is the undeveloped, cotton ball looking little buds which look to be the pistils and the stigmas and maybe the bract. I never looked that a close, to be frank. Down there in the underbrush, there's no usable PAR so they're a net loss and I trim them off if I'm in the mood.

One thing I checked out during my last grow was how little light there is below the top layer of the canopy. Even a light layer of vegetation blocks out light so I couldn't understand why manufacturers were hawking the ability for a light to "penetrate".

Shane at Migro did a video on this and I got the same results when I ran my test ("test" singular since once was enough). I was using a red heavy light, red being more easily absorbed than green, so the numbers will different from a white LED, but the PPFD reading at the top of the leaf surface was X and the reading immediately below it was, IIRC, 5% of X.

My journal indicates that reading for that area of the canopy was 700µmols that day so that would have meant the PPFD on the underside of the leaf was 35±. The figure I've seen for the light compensation point for cannabis is 64µmols so that's about ½ of what's needed to not be a photosynthetic sink and that was right below the first level of the canopy.

[time passes]

Check for a video entitled "Grow Light Penetration is WRONG"
 
Delps8 said:
One thing I checked out during my last grow was how little light there is below the top layer of the canopy. Even a light layer of vegetation blocks out light so I couldn't understand why manufacturers were hawking the ability for a light to "penetrate".
Click to expand...
Kinda depends on how heavy or how thick the canopy is. I would figure that a canopy that is thick enough to not be able to the see the contain the roots are in is thick enough to block light penetration. But some grows are not thick leafy canopies so the lighting manufacturers "penetration" recommendations will work.
 
SmokingWings said:
Kinda depends on how heavy or how thick the canopy is. I would figure that a canopy that is thick enough to not be able to the see the contain the roots are in is thick enough to block light penetration. But some grows are not thick leafy canopies so the lighting manufacturers "penetration" recommendations will work.
Click to expand...
I can understand making that argument but then it gets down to the meaning "canopy" and "penetration".

The deep question for the day - if there are no leaves the blocking the light, have the photons "penetrated the canopy"?

The logic behind that argument is that the "canopy" is a plane across the top of the leaves or colas of the plants and, if there's nothing in the path, the photons have "penetrated" the canopy.

That is an arguable view but, to my way of thinking, that just means that nothing got in the way so it's a rhetorical and marketing victory. It's a correct statement and it doesn't help the buyer understand the quality of the light which might be a motivating factor for sellers to make that claim.

Instead of putting up qualitative and undefined statements, publish third party light tests the way Chilled does. OK, that's really opening the kimono so the marketing department will scream. If they can't do that, publish PPFD maps. A lot of vendors are doing that now and that's a great step.

I'll admit that I have a hefty amount of bias here - it pains me to see people buying a "1000 watt light" thinking that they've for a light that draws 1000 watts, for example. I'd like to see sellers turn down the hype and provide more information but that will take some years, I suspect. The LED marketplace was born/reborn with the advent of the white light LED being available at commodity prices so it will take some time for buyers and sellers to settle on a common set of terms.

Back to "penetration" - the video that Shane did help to inform users that lights with "great penetration" don't penetrate leaves. That does help buyers develop a better understanding of what they're getting for their dollar. That's a good thing in my book.
 
Delps8 said:
I can understand making that argument but then it gets down to the meaning "canopy" and "penetration".

The deep question for the day - if there are no leaves the blocking the light, have the photons "penetrated the canopy"?

The logic behind that argument is that the "canopy" is a plane across the top of the leaves or colas of the plants and, if there's nothing in the path, the photons have "penetrated" the canopy.

That is an arguable view but, to my way of thinking, that just means that nothing got in the way so it's a rhetorical and marketing victory. It's a correct statement and it doesn't help the buyer understand the quality of the light which might be a motivating factor for sellers to make that claim.

Instead of putting up qualitative and undefined statements, publish third party light tests the way Chilled does. OK, that's really opening the kimono so the marketing department will scream. If they can't do that, publish PPFD maps. A lot of vendors are doing that now and that's a great step.

I'll admit that I have a hefty amount of bias here - it pains me to see people buying a "1000 watt light" thinking that they've for a light that draws 1000 watts, for example. I'd like to see sellers turn down the hype and provide more information but that will take some years, I suspect. The LED marketplace was born/reborn with the advent of the white light LED being available at commodity prices so it will take some time for buyers and sellers to settle on a common set of terms.

Back to "penetration" - the video that Shane did help to inform users that lights with "great penetration" don't penetrate leaves. That does help buyers develop a better understanding of what they're getting for their dollar. That's a good thing in my book.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about growing indoors but why don't indoor grow setups have lights on the sides as well instead of just having lights on top?
 
jokerlola said:
I know nothing about growing indoors but why don't indoor grow setups have lights on the sides as well instead of just having lights on top?
Click to expand...
I can't answer for other growers but if you check out some of the grow journals, you'll get some ideas about that.

For my last grow, I had a small light that I referred to as a "side car" light for a couple of branches that fell out of the tent so that was sort of "side lighting". I got at least a few ounces for my trouble. The big PITA for me is that my work space is cramped and then I'd have to build out something that I could use to hang the light. Maybe I'll tackle that as a project.
 
Delps8 said:
I can't answer for other growers but if you check out some of the grow journals, you'll get some ideas about that.

For my last grow, I had a small light that I referred to as a "side car" light for a couple of branches that fell out of the tent so that was sort of "side lighting". I got at least a few ounces for my trouble. The big PITA for me is that my work space is cramped and then I'd have to build out something that I could use to hang the light. Maybe I'll tackle that as a project.
Click to expand...
I know for outdoor plants, they get the sun as it rises and sets but I don't know of that sunrise and sunset sunlight is strong enough because on my outdoor plants, I still get the larf buds on the bottoms of the plants. I tried a couple of times to cut the big top colas and grow out those bottom buds longer but the temps just started getting too cold to continue. I'm sure if I would have had an indoor tent, I could have finished those in that.
 
jokerlola said:
I know for outdoor plants, they get the sun as it rises and sets but I don't know of that sunrise and sunset sunlight is strong enough because on my outdoor plants, I still get the larf buds on the bottoms of the plants. I tried a couple of times to cut the big top colas and grow out those bottom buds longer but the temps just started getting too cold to continue. I'm sure if I would have had an indoor tent, I could have finished those in that.
Click to expand...
Good point — do a sequential harvest for indoor grows.
 
jokerlola said:
...for outdoor plants, they get the sun as it rises and sets but I don't know of that sunrise and sunset sunlight is strong enough because on my outdoor plants, I still get the larf buds on the bottoms of the plants.
Click to expand...
Valid point. The amounts of usable light available in the first hour or so after sunrise and for the last hour before sunset is about zero. Even worse if it is cloudy.

But, the if plant has minor or small growing tips even lower down and getting little light it will still attempt to grow a small flower there as a way to increase seed production for the next growing season.
 
Hey jokerlola! I'll chime in here with my 2 cents...

To me this is partly a trimming question... the bigger buds are the keepers, the popcorn mostly, too, but the sub-popcorn (I also call fairy buds)... if I have the patience, I tend to clip those off, little sugar leaves and all, into their own bowl. They could be dried and cured like that, or thrown into the mix w/ the trim for making hash.

In terms of whether or not they should be left on the growing, flowering plant... I tend to leave most of them alone. But I do trim off most of the little branches that are found off the main branches, as part of pruning.
 
Sueet said:
Expensive magic. It lets you preserve (something) by rapidly freezing it and then subjecting it to a high vacuum. Kind of like a dehydrator, but it leaves whatever got freeze dried in essentially exactly the same as it went in except with zero moisture. (fruits become almost like candy bits)
Click to expand...
Nice 👍
 
Back
Top Bottom