The Proper Way To Water A Potted Plant

[Emilya Green]

But does that first cut really double your yield in terms of weight, or is it more about now two colas, each at roughly half the size of the single main one?

A given pot size is going to max out at a certain yield, whether it is concentrated in a single large bud with a bunch of smaller ones lower down, or with topping and training, help with height and spreading a given amount of hormones around to several other buds rather than being concentrated in a single bud.

More veg time and up-potting to larger pots gives you a larger plant and therefore certainly more weight in terms of yield, but I've always thought training a plant in your final pot size was more about space management and ending up with a bunch of similar sized colas rather than one dominant cola and a bunch of larf.

I don't believe that after making that first cut, that the two resulting main colas are now going to be half the size they would have been if left alone to have only one main cola. Certainly a plant with 50 nodes is not going to be able to achieve the bud size/weight as a less gifted plant, but as long as you don't go crazy with this, there is no reason that you can't achieve a few extra buds without compromising their individual weights and quality. If yield was a set quantity with a plant and no training could ever get over that amount, no one would ever top a plant. Topping might not exactly double the yield on that first cut, but it comes very close. Larf also has a lot more to do with light penetration and air flow than it does how many cuts you have made.

 

[Azimuth]

Right, but you're not multiplying your bud weight by double each time you top. By removing the apical dominance of that single bud and spreading the plant out, there likely is an increase in hormones and therefore harvest weight, but it's not some magic doubling each time you top.
I agree that harvest weight goes up after the first few toppings, but for me it's been an incremental increase, not multiples.

Unless of course you root those cuts and now double or quadruple your plant count, but that's not what we're talking about here.

I think ultimate yield has more to do with final pot size. And within that limit one can maximize the outcome with various training techniques, but to me it's more maybe 80-120% around an average or typical haul.

 

[Emilya Green]

Again, just for clarity, if I said somewhere that each cut doubles the yield, I misspoke. The only time that is even remotely true the very first cut you make... you turn 1 into 2. When those nodes come up and you top them again, 2 becomes 4, another doubling. Even if you stop cutting here, by this time 2 more have risen up from node 3, that would not have risen up to the top without this training. 4 becomes 6. If things are going right, those rising from node 2 are now approaching the canopy. 6 becomes 8, finally redoubling the second doubling.

More chopping can be done from this point to further increase the number of buds, and it's not crazy to see how an Edward Scissorhands type gardner could quickly increase the bud numbers to 16, 32, and I have seen plants with over 50 buds on them by using this exponential topping method that I like to call the Whack-A-Mole method of training.

Given enough time, a plant of this size could double its yield up to 6 times, producing a massive plant. Given enough soil, water, nutrient and time, this could happen... of course limited by how much you can get into the plant, including every input, air, water, space for the roots, and time you wish to stay in Veg. The natural thought is to believe that the plant could never supply the same sort of quality or size to each of these buds, logically creating substandard quality at best. I have seen credible arguments that there is no way that these buds could approach the quality of a plant that has been left alone to produce only one main cola. There are too many factors here... I am not certain that this is necessarily true.

But, give the limitations of indoor growing, our own capabilities, the time involved, it is reasonable to say that a smaller well run plant, not going crazy with extra buds, will more easily be able to get everything that it needs to produce superior buds. Also, in the 100-120 days that it takes to veg a massive multi topped plant, you could grow two seasons of a smaller less producing plants, getting close to the same yield in the same amount of time. So in that sense, I totally agree with you @Azimuth. The increase you get in topping is incremental and not always worth it. In the last recent experiment that I did using the Whack-A-Mole topping method, ending up with multiple plants with 30 or more buds, I realized that it would have been a whole lot more efficient go with fewer buds better airflow and quicker turnaround. The LSD plants now in my bloom room ended their training at the 6 becomes 8 stage, doubling three times. This produces a very efficient plant with minimal stretch and with proper management, I believe, a plant capable of producing 3x what a single cola plant could do. At least, I think that I have given them the capability of producing a whole lot more than they would have naturally, without going crazy with the topping, and I am now convinced that going much further than this in the training is actually sort of mad.

 

[Azimuth]

I think we're mostly saying the same thing. I was responding to @kikikopa 's question that seemed to suggest or wonder if he could double his harvest with each topping and so wanted to know where to stop to not get overwhelmed with product (every grower's worst nightmare )

My thoughts were that, say you grew in a fixed container size, say 2 gallon. Your harvest is going to be limited by that constraint. Certainly you can top and train to maximize what you get, but it isn't an unlimited end result. Now, if you take that topped and trained plant and pot it up to a 5 gallon container and continue to train and give it more veg time you will get a bigger plant an you most certainly will get an increased yield.

But, 40 or 50 tops won't result in 40 to 50 times the harvest in that 2 gallon pot. There is a tradeoff between the number of buds and the size of those buds. Your experiments seem to have found the sweet spot, at least for your setup. And, as you point out, more training and topping requires more recovery and veg time, reducing the number of turns or harvests you get in any 12 month period.

That's for indoor. Outdoors in the ground it probably does make sense to train longer for a much larger plant.

And now, back to your previously scheduled program on how to more effectively water a potted plant.

 

[kikikopa]

I think we're mostly saying the same thing. I was responding to @kikikopa 's question that seemed to suggest or wonder if he could double his harvest with each topping and so wanted to know where to stop to not get overwhelmed with product (every grower's worst nightmare )

My thoughts were that, say you grew in a fixed container size, say 2 gallon. Your harvest is going to be limited by that constraint. Certainly you can top and train to maximize what you get, but it isn't an unlimited end result. Now, if you take that topped and trained plant and pot it up to a 5 gallon container and continue to train and give it more veg time you will get a bigger plant an you most certainly will get an increased yield.

But, 40 or 50 tops won't result in 40 to 50 times the harvest in that 2 gallon pot. There is a tradeoff between the number of buds and the size of those buds. Your experiments seem to have found the sweet spot, at least for your setup. And, as you point out, more training and topping requires more recovery and veg time, reducing the number of turns or harvests you get in any 12 month period.

That's for indoor. Outdoors in the ground it probably does make sense to train longer for a much larger plant.

And now, back to your previously scheduled program on how to more effectively water a potted plant.

more maybe 80-120% around an average or typical haul.

A typical haul being a plant that was never topped? If so, that is so far from what I was thinking after reading what I thought was a doubling of yield. And I guess the 80% number would be if you somehow messed up the training and it had a negative effect on the yield? I have to wonder if it's worth the effort, for me, considering all of the variables that can affect the outcome although I do like the idea of not having one fat cola that you have to dry and cure to perfection to avoid bud rot/mold. So far on my current grow I've done a couple of toppings and the plants have responded well. Maybe I will just leave it at that and concentrate on building massive root balls which in itself should improve on my prior harvests.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Jon]

I don't believe that after making that first cut, that the two resulting main colas are now going to be half the size they would have been if left alone to have only one main cola. Certainly a plant with 50 nodes is not going to be able to achieve the bud size/weight as a less gifted plant, but as long as you don't go crazy with this, there is no reason that you can't achieve a few extra buds without compromising their individual weights and quality. If yield was a set quantity with a plant and no training could ever get over that amount, no one would ever top a plant. Topping might not exactly double the yield on that first cut, but it comes very close. Larf also has a lot more to do with light penetration and air flow than it does how many cuts you have made.

Interesting discussion, could I chime in? Here's a couple points of view...
I think you look at a seed, and it's a plant waiting to happen, and that seed contains a plant that has X amount of energy. By energy I mean what it's got to work with genetically. It has a max, limited by the seed itself, regardless of how it's trained. We try to find that max. Via experimentation I have determined to my own satisfaction that just letting a plant grow naturally with no training is NOT going to get you to the max. But neither is turning the plant into a trillion bud sites. There is a sweet spot in there somewhere I believe. So I kind of think at this point that generating 50 or 60 sites is great, and it seems like you make a way higher yield. But that comes with a corresponding higher flarf count too. The more "scroggy" that plant gets in training, the more flarf you'll have. It's the downside of the scrog in my opinion and also I just found the downside to the training method I just tried on my recently harvest tent grow. I thought my yield would be huge as I had a ton of well developed bud sites. But just as a scrog, the yield was more limited to the tops and middle of the stems. The bottom was garbage. With all those sites comes a ton of undergrowth that becomes impossible to make so that the lower buds get the same light and growth. Outdoor maybe but not in a tent. Least that is what I have found. So I am trying to find that sweet spot you guys are talking about too, and I'm now pretty convinced that there's a point of diminishing returns with the number of buds you make. Don't yet know where it is. But I only got a QP of perfect, jarred buds per plant on those, along with an ounce and a half on each of flarf and "littles" - buds I wouldn't bother trimming but are smokeable. Looking at it pre harvest I thought I had more like six ounces each plant of finished trimmed bud. Had I gone with fewer bud sites, with longer stems, and a lot more light to the middle and bottom of the plant, I bet my yield would have been higher than the way I did it.

So there's that, for what it's worth.

 

[Azimuth]

And I guess the 80% number would be if you somehow messed up the training and it had a negative effect on the yield?

Lots of things can affect the yield from fertigation issues to lighting, humidity, temperature, etc. If you are really good at reading your plants and can interpret what they are telling you, then you can anticipate what is needed and make adjustments. If not, yield goes down as you don't have the optimal conditions. In flower, the clock is ticking and there is no recovery time for sub-optimal grow conditions. If still in veg you can just extend out the veg stage but that comes at a cost of number of turns per year in an indoor grow.

Interesting discussion, could I chime in? Here's a couple points of view...
I think you look at a seed, and it's a plant waiting to happen, and that seed contains a plant that has X amount of energy. By energy I mean what it's got to work with genetically. It has a max, limited by the seed itself, regardless of how it's trained. We try to find that max. Via experimentation I have determined to my own satisfaction that just letting a plant grow naturally with no training is NOT going to get you to the max. But neither is turning the plant into a trillion bud sites. There is a sweet spot in there somewhere I believe. So I kind of think at this point that generating 50 or 60 sites is great, and it seems like you make a way higher yield. But that comes with a corresponding higher flarf count too. The more "scroggy" that plant gets in training, the more flarf you'll have. It's the downside of the scrog in my opinion and also I just found the downside to the training method I just tried on my recently harvest tent grow. I thought my yield would be huge as I had a ton of well developed bud sites. But just as a scrog, the yield was more limited to the tops and middle of the stems. The bottom was garbage. With all those sites comes a ton of undergrowth that becomes impossible to make so that the lower buds get the same light and growth. Outdoor maybe but not in a tent. Least that is what I have found. So I am trying to find that sweet spot you guys are talking about too, and I'm now pretty convinced that there's a point of diminishing returns with the number of buds you make. Don't yet know where it is. But I only got a QP of perfect, jarred buds per plant on those, along with an ounce and a half on each of flarf and "littles" - buds I wouldn't bother trimming but are smokeable. Looking at it pre harvest I thought I had more like six ounces each plant of finished trimmed bud. Had I gone with fewer bud sites, with longer stems, and a lot more light to the middle and bottom of the plant, I bet my yield would have been higher than the way I did it.

So there's that, for what it's worth.

^^This

 

[Brudley]

I would have to agree with there can be too much training. I tried to scrogg a couple of plants which just took up too much room. I like to move my plants around to vary the light they get as well as just working with them . I’m finding that just bending them over, is enough to open it up without taking up too much room. This a purple haze in my room that is about perfect. I used LST only, still going to have a nice big cola. .
I have been using the watering methods in this thread and working very well. Thank you again Emilya!

 

[Brudley]

This plant on the other hand may be too spread out. Definitely depends on the strain. This Green Crack autoflower definitely showing those sativa genes. Leggy as hell. She’s probably starting to spread her roots into that Living Soil in the bottom third,. I’m expecting her to explode with growth soon.

 

[Emilya Green]

I would have to agree with there can be too much training. I tried to scrogg a couple of plants which just took up too much room. I like to move my plants around to vary the light they get as well as just working with them . I’m finding that just bending them over, is enough to open it up without taking up too much room. This a purple haze in my room that is about perfect. I used LST only, still going to have a nice big cola. .
I have been using the watering methods in this thread and working very well. Thank you again Emilya!

looking great!

 

[Azimuth]

Em,

I know you use mosquito dunks in your water tank to control fungus gnats. Do you think they would also be effective on thrips? And, if so, is that considered an organic treatment?

I've had good luck controlling them with my fish extract but I seem to get a new flush of the little bastards whenever I up-pot so I figure they must be coming in with my mix, and I thought that might be a good way to deal with them in the soil before they get up onto the leaves.

 

[Emilya Green]

no, its not organic... dunks have a specific poison that attacks larvae. Thrips seems to be very persistent. If you don't go after them every 3 days until they are gone, they keep coming back. I use SNS 209 in the soil with every watering... it flavors the plants with rosemary I think, and the bugs don't like eating it.... so they never really take hold if you start from the very beginning with that. Infestations I handle with SNS 203, and there are even more powerful ones for aphids and mites. These products are organic and natural. I am also considering getting a herd of ladybugs in here... the two or three volunteers are still hanging on and apparently eating a lot of thrips. Why spray if I can get hired help, I keep asking myself.

 

[Azimuth]

Ok, thanks. I'll keep after it with my fish spray. A little foliar fertilizer and bug spray rolled into one. Appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Tonclon]

no, its not organic... dunks have a specific poison that attacks larvae. Thrips seems to be very persistent. If you don't go after them every 3 days until they are gone, they keep coming back. I use SNS 209 in the soil with every watering... it flavors the plants with rosemary I think, and the bugs don't like eating it.... so they never really take hold if you start from the very beginning with that. Infestations I handle with SNS 203, and there are even more powerful ones for aphids and mites. These products are organic and natural. I am also considering getting a herd of ladybugs in here... the two or three volunteers are still hanging on and apparently eating a lot of thrips. Why spray if I can get hired help, I keep asking myself.

Thanks for the info Emilya! You always have great information...

 

[Brudley]

Yes, any information coming from Emilya just makes “sense”, as in Sense Emilya!

 

[Azimuth]

Em,

A quick pH question for you.

When using bottled nutes, is it important to pH the fertigation liquid because the plants can only take up those nutrients within certain pH ranges, or because those ranges are needed to release the nutrients from their bonds so that they become plant available?

I ask because I am about to embark on an experiment with my diy organic nutes and they are supposed to be water soluable so that should mean they are available to the plants for uptake, so am wondering if I'd even need to pH.

I know in an organic soil mix the microbes pretty much take care of pH fluctuations so checking it in those mediums is much less necessary.

 

[Brudley]

Em,

A quick pH question for you.

When using bottled nutes, is it important to pH the fertigation liquid because the plants can only take up those nutrients within certain pH ranges, or because those ranges are needed to release the nutrients from their bonds so that they become plant available?

I ask because I am about to embark on an experiment with my diy organic nutes and they are supposed to be water soluable so that should mean they are available to the plants for uptake, so am wondering if I'd even need to pH.

I know in an organic soil mix the microbes pretty much take care of pH fluctuations so checking it in those mediums is much less necessary.

Very good question I need to hear the answer to as well! Also, do we need to worry about chloramine in our tap water? My tap water ph is about 7.8 and has chloramine (instead of chlorine). I have not been treating tap water at all for last month. Everything appears to be going ok, but no idea what the health of microbes are..?

 

[Azimuth]

Very good question I need to hear the answer to as well! Also, do we need to worry about chloramine in our tap water? My tap water ph is about 7.8 and has chloramine (instead of chlorine). I have not been treating tap water at all for last month. Everything appears to be going ok, but no idea what the health of microbes are..?

The chloramine will kill off your microbes, although there have been some studies that suggest you can just add them back with worm castings or such. The Geoflora nutrient line has stated this explicitly. The municipalities put that stuff in specifically to kill off all those microbes.

That said, it will apparently fall out of solution if you add some vitamin C (crushed up tablets are what Emilya uses) to your water storage.

 

[Emilya Green]

Em,

A quick pH question for you.

When using bottled nutes, is it important to pH the fertigation liquid because the plants can only take up those nutrients within certain pH ranges, or because those ranges are needed to release the nutrients from their bonds so that they become plant available?

I ask because I am about to embark on an experiment with my diy organic nutes and they are supposed to be water soluable so that should mean they are available to the plants for uptake, so am wondering if I'd even need to pH.

I know in an organic soil mix the microbes pretty much take care of pH fluctuations so checking it in those mediums is much less necessary.

The reason we pH adjust bottled nutes while getting them ready to apply to the medium is that the nutes have been bundled so that they don't interact against each other while in the bottle. This is called chelation, and without this special trick, your nutes would not be stable and would have an extremely short shelf life, or you would have to mix up to 10 individual bottles of nutrient while getting ready to feed your plants. So, the pH thing isn't a magic thing that makes the plants able to see the nutes... it is simply the mechanism that makes the nutes mobile within the solution and able to be taken up by the plants.

So your organic nutes are not chelated. Whatever you put in there is going to be instantly available to the plants. Ph will not be a factor. Microbes don't "take care" of anything to do with the pH... it simply isn't a factor. The microbes don't care what the pH is, nor does your soil and neither does your plants. PH is something reserved for the bottled nute crowd.

My question is that since you are not cooking your raw nutrients into the soil through composting, whatever you throw in there is immediately available to the plants... the microbes don't even have control over your forced feeding. Without the microbes regulating the feeding cycle, this may be an organic grow as in the sense that it is not using synthetic nutes, but YOU are still force feeding your plants, you are not letting the microbes do their job. Until you take your hand off of the wheel and let the microbes and the soil and the plants work together on the organic feeding cycle, this is NOT an organic grow in the true sense of the term. In the final analysis, this is still a human being force feeding his plants.

 

[Emilya Green]

The chloramine will kill off your microbes, although there have been some studies that suggest you can just add them back with worm castings or such. The Geoflora nutrient line has stated this explicitly. The municipalities put that stuff in specifically to kill off all those microbes.

That said, it will apparently fall out of solution if you add some vitamin C (crushed up tablets are what Emilya uses) to your water storage.

It takes swimming pool concentrations of chlorine products to totally kill off your microbes, and at the levels found in our tap water we will only kill off a percentage of the microbes with each watering. If you are running synthetic nutes and are not really using the microbes or the organic feeding cycle, feel free to use your tap water without causing harm... chlorine does not harm our plants. If you are running an organic feeding cycle, such as a supersoil water only grow, then it is important to mind your microbes. You can care for them by using only RO water or by adding back fresh microbes on a regular basis. That is what Geoflora is doing, fresh microbes come in with each feeding, so many of them in fact, that you can use tap water with fresh chlorine with each watering, and the Geoflora will keep up with things. I much prefer this type of system than the expense of RO water or after cleaning out my holding barrel a couple of times, having to deal with the sludge left at the bottom from dropping out the chlorine products to the bottom of the barrel.