speedydriver99
420 Member
First time grower and in the 3rd week of flower should I cut the lower canopy not getting light or would it stress the plant too much in this stage of flowering?
Should I remove some lower leaves?
- Thread starter speedydriver99
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 3rd week of flower
TwelveCoffee
Well-Known Member
Hey welcome to the community! Your plant looks great I don’t personally know the answer to your question but one of our many knowledgeable growers can tell you like
@InTheShed and @Bill284 or @HappyHazmat88 hope you find the help you need and remember to stay hydrated
@InTheShed and @Bill284 or @HappyHazmat88 hope you find the help you need and remember to stay hydrated
Traditionally, everything below the net gets stripped, but with there being so few leaves above the net I would leave the leaves alone.
HappyHazmat88
Inhale Confidence, Exhale Doubt
Hey @speedydriver99 nice looking plant ya got there.
And thanks @TwelveCoffee for the tag.
So I haven't used the netting but I have read a ton on it... From what I understand you cut everything below the net or lollipopping for the cool kidz lol but I agree with @InTheShed wait a bit for the mains to be above the net and full.....then I would say you can remove them. So at this point I wouldn't worry about them for now as the plant needs all it's solar panels to grow....then afterwards trim it up.
Pictures of lollipopping or sog general idea.
And thanks @TwelveCoffee for the tag.
So I haven't used the netting but I have read a ton on it... From what I understand you cut everything below the net or lollipopping for the cool kidz lol but I agree with @InTheShed wait a bit for the mains to be above the net and full.....then I would say you can remove them. So at this point I wouldn't worry about them for now as the plant needs all it's solar panels to grow....then afterwards trim it up.
Pictures of lollipopping or sog general idea.
HappyHazmat88
Inhale Confidence, Exhale Doubt
Oh and may I make a suggestion? Can you tuck those longer stems under the net to level things and create more bud sites?
BarnacleBill
Well-Known Member
Its an area of controversy anymore. A lot (most) of the organic growers will argue that you should leave anything that is not turning yellow attached and growing. The exception being opening enough of the lower canopy to allow air circulation to prevent mold. Then there are those that follow a more traditional route. Lolly-popping and intense pruning. Both work but in your case as thin as the plant is I would recommend leaving as much of the green growth as possible. I also didn't see a strain name or if the plant is an auto or photo period. Some strains have certain criteria that effects yeild. This is always taken into consideration. Your doing well, keep it up!
- Thread starter
- #7
speedydriver99
420 Member
The strain is Don Carlos and Photo Period. Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. I lived out in AZ and have experience growing quit a bit of vegetables and herbs inside and decided to give this a try. I did train the higher stems, so hoping it will produce bigger and more bud sites. I will not touch the leaves until they are yellow and not beneficial to the plant anymore. I appreciate all the advice from everyone!
Teddy Edwards
Well-Known Member
@speedydriver99 Welcome New Members - Please Read Before Posting
This thread has been moved to Frequently Asked Questions.
We work hard to make 420 Magazine as navigable as possible for members and guests so that information can be easily found. We also want to ensure that your own thread receives the most appropriate responses, views or support.
If you're thinking retroactively turn it into a SCROG grow... it's a bit late, isn't it? OP stated the plant is in the third week of flower. I'd only expect it to stretch for about the first 40% of the total flowing period. Although... OP didn't specify which day of the third week, so could be 15th... to the 21st. That the plant was developed enough to actually begin the flowering phase when the light schedule was changed is an assumption, but probably accurate. Let's see, a 70-day flowering period, I'd expect the stretch to last approximately 28 days.
IDK. Just rambling, I guess. Flattening the greenery into a plane would allow OP to lower the light, I suppose, which might be helpful in general. Still rambling. . . .
Good morning @speedydriver99First time grower and in the 3rd week of flower should I cut the lower canopy not getting light or would it stress the plant too much in this stage of flowering?
beautiful lady.It looks like she has been over defoled already.
I wouldn't take anything at all off her anymore.
She needs her leaves for bud production, contrary to popular myth.
Let her go she will be great.
How is your feed regiment ?
You giving full strength feedings?
Keep upnthe good work?
Stay safe
Bill
HappyHazmat88
Inhale Confidence, Exhale Doubt
Yup I missed that part I'm sorry
as originally stated I've never done it just read a bunch and you are correct should be done to start not mid way through.... Well, I will remember that but next time....thanks again for pointing that out.
I'd say that there is an advantage in a newly flat canopy thing as TS mentioned at the end.
Yup I missed that part I'm sorry
No worries. Take a look at the second picture in post #1. See how a lot of the plant is above the net(?) thing? If, when the top of the plant has grown up an inch and a half or so (depending on size of the openings), it had been pulled back through and placed at a different hole that it could barely reach... and then, each morning, repositioned again (because it would have grown in 24 hours), and again, and... It would have produced significantly more branches. Eventually, you'd end up with the tip of one at most holes (all would be nice - but "most" is better than "not enough holes"). You switch to 12/12 light/darkness, and for the first 40% ("the stretch") of the flowering period, every one of those tips grow upward. Then, vertical growth basically stops, the plant fills in with bud, and you harvest a full screen of same.
With that method, you do remove what's below the screen - because your wall to wall canopy of bud will block (absorb) the light. Plus, the usual "devote resources to the upper part of the plant," but with a good scrog you really want to. First stage, get the plant up to the screen. Second stage, keep the plant at the screen. Third, let the canopy build on top of the screen. You don't have to move your light until - during the flowering phase - you decide its time to let the plant's stretch "go vertical." Until then, park it as close to the screen as the plant will tolerate.
If your screen is not full when you change your light schedule, you can continue to train the plant - just remember that the stretch period is a finite number of days... and you'll want some vertical growth before it ends, because buds. On the other hand, if your light is kind of weak, a full canopy of three inch buds might end better than a 75% canopy of six inch ones.
That's sort of a summary of the SCROG gardening method. Enough to get a person started. If you're going to do your first one, a plant that is a hybrid with a reasonably high percentage of sativa in its parentage would probably be best, with a ten- to twelve-week flowering period. And use a single plant, even if that means you're either going to have a longer growth phase than you normally do or use a smaller screen and grow something else (or another of the same) in the remaining space. Multiple plants in the same screen can be a bit of a hassle - and that's assuming they're clones from the same mother, with the same flowering period length. Trying to harvest one plant in a three-plant screen because it's the only one ready (and the plants are intertwined) quickly becomes more than "a bit" of one.
HappyHazmat88
Inhale Confidence, Exhale Doubt
Thank you tortured....I appreciate the breakdown. Ill prolly never use a net personally as I like taking my plants out to be able to check them over thoroughly and shuffle them about in the space.. But seriously thanks for putting in the time to explain and type. I'm sure this information will be helpful for @speedydriver99 for future use of his netting.
Delps8
Well-Known Member
How about checking the light level, as well? It looks like your light is over 2' from the plant. Light intensity drops very quickly as the light moves away from the canopy. If you cut the distance in half between the light and the plant, the intensity goes up by 400%. Pretty crazy.
The manufacturer of your light should provide information about intensity and hang height. You might want to check with them.
What's the make and model of your light?
The manufacturer of your light should provide information about intensity and hang height. You might want to check with them.
What's the make and model of your light?
The inverse square lighting law is actually not wholly valid inside an enclosed space - but you are correct that the light energy quickly drops off with distance (it's just not a logarithmic scale like we used to think it was).
Delps8
Well-Known Member
"What you mean "we", kemosabe?"
I'm new enough to growing that I missed a lot of "bro science", something which every significant endeavor develops in time. I did own a blurple for the one grow in 2017. It was a real eye opened to get the PPFD chart for that.
The inverse square law does not change because photons are in a tent but, for a variety of reasons, the photons may have bounced around quite a bit so a particle hitting the surface N distance from the source may have traveled Nx to get there. IIRC, one of the conditions of the inverse square law is that the light being measured must be coherent and, a cannabis tent tends to make things…incoherent. ;-)
My concern about the OP's set up is that his plants are underfed and even the light that scatters and then bounces back on the canopy isn't going to do much to boost his DLI.
Uh... People who didn't understand the difference between an enclosed space and an open one?
The inverse square light law is not made up dumb shit (aka "bro
Well, no, it doesn't change - but it doesn't apply, as such.
If you double your distance from a streetlight, and are then only receiving 25% as much light as you were before, the other 75% hasn't disappeared from reality; it is merely not falling upon your person. In a small enclosed space, with reasonably reflective walls... much of the light-energy that would have failed to "hit" the plant if it were in an open area still - eventually - does. Yes, you lose a bit on each bounce, as it were, but it's not the same thing at all; that's simple absorption vs. reflection at work. If the walls/ceiling/floor/container/soil/etc. were perfectly reflective, all of the light-energy would eventually reach the plant. Okay, I should probably throw in "...and the tent was also a perfect vacuum," too
. Even though some photons would travel a direct path to the plant while others would reflect some number of times before reaching it.Ergo, it is not entirely valid in an enclosed space. It fails to account for the fact that 100% of the photons that do not directly fall upon the subject (e.g., the plant) are not simply continuing until they end their journey elsewhere.
Delps8
Well-Known Member
My comment was meant to be light hearted.
What is it with people need to resort to insulting people? If you truly think I'm dumb, why insult me? I just don't understand that…
I'm pretty familiar with the inverse square law. I'd be surprised if that changed since took physics.
The inverse square law does not change if you measure in a box, in a sphere, or a pentagon. And much of you wrote is totally correct.Well, no, it doesn't change - but it doesn't apply, as such.
If you double your distance from a streetlight, and are then only receiving 25% as much light as you were before, the other 75% hasn't disappeared from reality; it is merely not falling upon your person. In a small enclosed space, with reasonably reflective walls... much of the light-energy that would have failed to "hit" the plant if it were in an open area still - eventually - does. Yes, you lose a bit on each bounce, as it were, but it's not the same thing at all; that's simple absorption vs. reflection at work. If the walls/ceiling/floor/container/soil/etc. were perfectly reflective, all of the light-energy would eventually reach the plant. Okay, I should probably throw in "...and the tent was also a perfect vacuum," too
Ergo, it is not entirely valid in an enclosed space. It fails to account for the fact that 100% of the photons that do not directly fall upon the subject (e.g., the plant) are not simply continuing until they end their journey elsewhere.
You're making the same point that I was making:
"Even though some photons would travel a direct path to the plant while others would reflect some number of times before reaching it."
The photons that "reflect some number of time before reaching it.", which is a great way to describe it, are the same very photons that I was referring to when I wrote "the photons may have bounced around quite a bit so a particle hitting the surface N distance from the source may have traveled Nx to get there."
"Ergo, it is not entirely valid in an enclosed space. It fails to account for the fact that 100% of the photons that do not directly fall upon the subject (e.g., the plant) are not simply continuing until they end their journey elsewhere."
The law is valid and correct and can be used in any space that you wish. The law describes how light attenuates as the distance between the source and the sensor changes.
What I think you're trying to say is something along the lines of "It is incorrect to use the inverse square law to calculate the intensity of the light on the plant surface by calculating the distance from the light source to the canopy surface. The canopy in a grow tent receives some light directly from the light source but it also receives light that has traveled from the light itself and has bounced around in the canopy, perhaps many times, before it hits the canopy."
Again, the inverse square law does not change - you won't get a valid result if you measure something that violates the underlying conditions upon which the law based.
We really are talking about the same thing and I hope the OP finds this discussion…illuminating.
If you lack the comprehension to even know whether you're being insulted or not, I suggest you ask someone next time.
