Hi guys, how do we feel about removing lower bud sites that are not getting much light? I'm running a Mars hydro 600w and it just doesn't penetrate enough. Would it be bad to remove lower bud sites?
Removing lower budsites that don't get much light?
- Thread starter Greengrower
- Start date
Yes remove everything off on the bottom of your plants that isn't worth a damn. All the bologna small Bud sites little leaves. you don't need anything or down there if it doesn't get light it ain't worth a damn. By doing that you create good airflow underneath the canopy and you'll have AAA Bud on the top.
maintain that type of manicuring to your plant throughout the grow long with topping and super cropping you can't go wrong. Better Bud greater yield happier smoker 
Wow that sounds like a lot of stress to the plant lol. Either way, if I decide to start taking the lower sites off is it better to do it in veg or pre flower stretch? 3 of my girls are in their stretch and 1 is in veg stillYes remove everything off on the bottom of your plants that isn't worth a damn. All the bologna small Bud sites little leaves. you don't need anything or down there if it doesn't get light it ain't worth a damn. By doing that you create good airflow underneath the canopy and you'll have AAA Bud on the top.
Yup stressed plants grow the best weed. AAA bud.
Those lower buds still have potency, almost as much as top buds.
I keep mine unless I don't need much herb.
I've got a batch of Strawberry Nuggets Popcorn oil tincture that's almost as good as that made from good flower.
The only issue I have is because my led doesn't penetrate enough the buds don't fatten, they're extremely airy and whispy
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 27,285
- Reputation
- 20,296
- Reaction score
- 110,581
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- Dabs of Rosin.
Orca Grow film will improve the light available to the lower parts of the plant. Some of the smallest stuff will never amount to much but you won't know until the plant matures. The bottom buds of this Lil'MOBstar were as good as the main colas of some plants?
31drew31
Cultivators Club
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2019
- Messages
- 173
- Reputation
- 20
- Reaction score
- 425
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- Cosmic Queen, 24 Carat, BW x 3BOG
I like to periodically remove the lower stuff as it grows, then once more a 1 or 2 weeks into flower. Heres some pics, top pics are before defoliating, bottom pics are 24hrs later. They look pretty rough right after but they perk up quickly. This was day 38/39.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
- Messages
- 3,110
- Reputation
- 431
- Reaction score
- 10,018
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- La Buena Hierba Panama Haze
I leave all my lower but until the final 4 weeks then I begin sampling it. Imo the best grown endures little stress, quality nutrition with low feed strength, and a dialed in environment.
You can remove them or leave them. I've gotten nice bud from lower branches. Light penetration is real but I believe it is misunderstood. The transmittance effect nullifies the idea of penetration in a sense because your light is raining photons constantly. The PPFD measures the amount photons but like rain they don't only hit top buds but the whole plant.
You can remove them or leave them. I've gotten nice bud from lower branches. Light penetration is real but I believe it is misunderstood. The transmittance effect nullifies the idea of penetration in a sense because your light is raining photons constantly. The PPFD measures the amount photons but like rain they don't only hit top buds but the whole plant.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2019
- Messages
- 7,050
- Reputation
- 6,811
- Reaction score
- 34,906
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- Various strains, via MCT oil tincture, gummies, dry flower vaping.
Here's my theory on penetration, just theory mind you, so take it accordingly.
Penetration, as it applies to us weed growers and our lights, is not so much about light piercing the leaves to get to lower leaves as it is about the comparative light intensity at the top of the canopy relative to the lower. If, for example, you are growing with a light only a foot from the top of the canopy, the light at the bottom of a two foot deep canopy will be (roughly speaking now, so don't dump on me) something like one ninth of the intensity at the top. Which of course means that unless you are toasting the tops, the bottoms are getting bugger all.
Compare that with a light being used, because it is higher power and/or has lenses to focus light, at three feet from the canopy top. Are you thinking Cobs? Maybe you should be, but strong lights of any kind get the same advantage. Anyway, if the light is three feet from the top of the canopy, light intensity at the bottom of a two foot canopy will be (again, roughly speaking) about a third of what the top gets, i.e. more or less three times the light reaching the lower canopy than in the example above.
Bottom line is that stronger lights further away is what makes for better "penetration". The worst option, CFL's that have to be fractions of a foot away, the best option, the sun. For sunlight, effectively zero difference in intensity no matter how tall the canopy is.
This issue gets downright silly with a canopy more than a couple feet high, which many strains have no trouble growing. The same comparison in light heights on a three foot canopy means almost ten times the lower canopy light if the grow light is three feet from the canopy rather than at 1 foot away.
OTOH, just theory based on the oft maligned inverse square law. And yes, I know that it suffers somewhat from close reflective walls in the grow space.
Happy lighting peeps.
Penetration, as it applies to us weed growers and our lights, is not so much about light piercing the leaves to get to lower leaves as it is about the comparative light intensity at the top of the canopy relative to the lower. If, for example, you are growing with a light only a foot from the top of the canopy, the light at the bottom of a two foot deep canopy will be (roughly speaking now, so don't dump on me) something like one ninth of the intensity at the top. Which of course means that unless you are toasting the tops, the bottoms are getting bugger all.
Compare that with a light being used, because it is higher power and/or has lenses to focus light, at three feet from the canopy top. Are you thinking Cobs? Maybe you should be, but strong lights of any kind get the same advantage. Anyway, if the light is three feet from the top of the canopy, light intensity at the bottom of a two foot canopy will be (again, roughly speaking) about a third of what the top gets, i.e. more or less three times the light reaching the lower canopy than in the example above.
Bottom line is that stronger lights further away is what makes for better "penetration". The worst option, CFL's that have to be fractions of a foot away, the best option, the sun. For sunlight, effectively zero difference in intensity no matter how tall the canopy is.
This issue gets downright silly with a canopy more than a couple feet high, which many strains have no trouble growing. The same comparison in light heights on a three foot canopy means almost ten times the lower canopy light if the grow light is three feet from the canopy rather than at 1 foot away.
OTOH, just theory based on the oft maligned inverse square law. And yes, I know that it suffers somewhat from close reflective walls in the grow space.
Happy lighting peeps.
Last edited:
