# Dense Budz



## allgrownup (Nov 29, 2007)

What is the single greatest contributing factor to ensure dense budz?

Lights?

Nutes?

Consistent environment?

I'd like to know what others think.  I have given some thought why i have some of these loose budz.  I think my 400W just didn't get enough penetration  around the lower parts of my plant.  I also had a pest problem that really_*EDIT*_[/COLORup my plants.  I mean just about every leaf got ate up and they had to be stressed for sure.  It took the 3rd try over the period of a month to find an organic product that knocked em out for a while.  I did not want to fumigate my plants over and over in a short period of time so i just crossed my fingers and went for it.  Anyway....Heres some pics of some of the looser budz.

truly disappointing.  :hairpull:


----------



## Ekoostik_Hookah (Nov 29, 2007)

i think its strain related, some are dense, some are fluffy headies.


----------



## ThinkGREEN (Nov 29, 2007)

I would say that´s pretty normal... I always cut the little branches on the bottom of the Plant off, 
so that most of the energy is concentrated in the upper part of the plant. 
That way you mostly have on the top bigger and heavier buds. It´s the best way to get the most out of them.
And to control your Pest problem, I suggest you water your plants from the begining with a little Neem oil/ water mixture. 
Believe me...it helps alot...

Hope I could help a little...

ThinkGREEN


----------



## THE BROTHER'S GRUNT (Nov 29, 2007)

*I would go with lighting.  *


----------



## Ekoostik_Hookah (Nov 29, 2007)

but he said hes using a 400w, he shouldnt have any problem with light then.
  i had 3 plants under 400w once, all buds were sooo thick.


----------



## ThinkGREEN (Nov 29, 2007)

ok....of course if you only have 3 Plants under a HPS....
but 3 under 400W?
Thats a waste of money and electricity....
I would put atleast 10 under 1 400W HPS....you get more out of it

ThinkGREEN


----------



## Growdude (Nov 29, 2007)

ThinkGREEN said:
			
		

> ok....of course if you only have 3 Plants under a HPS....
> but 3 under 400W?
> Thats a waste of money and electricity....
> I would put atleast 10 under 1 400W HPS....you get more out of it
> ...


 

It all depends on how big the plant is, you cant get 10 of MY plants under a 400 watt.

It does have to do with strain but any strain should grow a full bud.
Light is the key and ofcourse a healthy plant.


----------



## Hick (Nov 29, 2007)

AGU..IMHO.. _"all"_ of the mentioned factors play a vital roll in the quality of your final product. All need to be administered in proper proportions, at the proper times, in the proper environment in order to maximize the results.
     Lower growth usually suffers from light deprivation, due to lighting distance/penetration, but the actual growth hormones and how/where they are being directed through training, can also play a part. 
  It certainly has nothing to do with the number of plants you had. Three, properly trained and cared for, could produce more high quality results than 10 crowded, unkept plants.


----------



## ThinkGREEN (Nov 29, 2007)

Hick said:
			
		

> AGU..IMHO.. _"all"_ of the mentioned factors play a vital roll in the quality of your final product. All need to be administered in proper proportions, at the proper times, in the proper environment in order to maximize the results.
> Lower growth usually suffers from light deprivation, due to lighting distance/penetration, but the actual growth hormones and how/where they are being directed through training, can also play a part.
> It certainly has nothing to do with the number of plants you had. Three, properly trained and cared for, could produce more high quality results than 10 crowded, unkept plants.




well...without being a smart***  :hubba:.....
I would say it depends on the grower...  10 properly trained, will give you much more. 400W is enough for 1,2m² or about 1 x 1 yard. (sorry if i got it wrong, i´m european, we use metric)


----------



## Hick (Nov 29, 2007)

hee hee... you sound about as well versed on our measuring system, as I am with metrics.. 
  yup..I think a meter is _"about"_ a yard.. 

    10 properly trained and cared for plants, will usually produce more than 3.. "yup" again. But it doesn't necessarily mean a waste of space or electricity. The point I was trying to make, is 3 plants, trained, could certainly fill the space that a 400 will efficiently cover.


----------



## Ekoostik_Hookah (Nov 29, 2007)

ThinkGREEN said:
			
		

> ok....of course if you only have 3 Plants under a HPS....
> but 3 under 400W?
> Thats a waste of money and electricity....
> I would put atleast 10 under 1 400W HPS....you get more out of it
> ...



 i had 3 of the biggest bushes you have ever seen under a 400w. they were all LST like crazy, each plant had about 6+ main colas. i almost didnt have enough room.
 Im looking for pictures of this grow on my old forum...rollitup,org

 I ended up having to put tomato rings around each plant, because the colas were starting to fall over, cuz they were so thick.

 hows it a waste of anything? its the same price if you grow 5 plants, or if you grow 10 plants...??


----------



## allgrownup (Nov 29, 2007)

just to clarify.....these loose buds were above the canopy.  they are feet below the light though as the colas' just kept growing and growing.

Hick and others, when you are referring to "training", are you suggesting that when you plan on not Lst'n i should still be training in some fashion like trimmin the plant or doing something else to them?  I have read here that the lower 3rd of the plant does not produce strong bud so i did cut some of these nodes off. However  some of these loose buds can be found around the bottom of the colas as well.  thats what led me to believe it may be light penetration.  That and the fact that these plants grew right up to and surrounded the light when i ran out of space to raise the light, which is up to my ceiling LOL!  these plants really got chewed up to. I'm sure that effected them with stress.

I would much rather have had these plants 2 feet shorter and much denser.

Did they grow this tall because of the space provided for the number of plants? I have 6 plants in a 4' X 20" X 8' space.  I think its just to narrow for 6 plants and they had nowhere to go but up.  so when all the energy went to the colas they just kept going and left the rest of the nodes behind, and then they are getting significantly less lumens due height of light?

What would you guys suggest as the ideal size box to grow 6 plant without them competing and growing all crazy like this grow did.  I think i'm going to build a new box for the next grwo.

thanks


----------



## JerseyFreshB (Nov 29, 2007)

ThinkGREEN said:
			
		

> ok....of course if you only have 3 Plants under a HPS....
> but 3 under 400W?
> Thats a waste of money and electricity....
> I would put atleast 10 under 1 400W HPS....you get more out of it
> ...


 
the money saved not buying weed should outway the electric cost....even if only 1 plant was grown.
I grew one plant and saved myself about 300 bucks... running a 400w light for one grow cycle will not cost anywhere near that...

As so the orginal post i would say lighting since that is the first they people recomend upgrading...


----------



## NewbieG (Nov 29, 2007)

hows it a waste of anything? its the same price if you grow 5 plants, or if you grow 10 plants...??[/quote]

ahhh its economics my dear Watkins. What he was saying was that the light would have been better spent with 10 plants instead of 3. Although you are correct that the CASH expenses are the same, the fact that their is a better opportunity being forgone means that he is not maximizing his profits, and their for is in fact wasting resources by not getting the highest yield possible from these resources. He should be attempting to maxamize his utility  which in this case would be a higher harvest (from 10 plants) for the same cost.:woohoo: gotta love studying for econ finals


----------



## Growdude (Nov 29, 2007)

NewbieG said:
			
		

> hows it a waste of anything? its the same price if you grow 5 plants, or if you grow 10 plants...??


 
ahhh its economics my dear Watkins. What he was saying was that the light would have been better spent with 10 plants instead of 3. Although you are correct that the CASH expenses are the same, the fact that their is a better opportunity being forgone means that he is not maximizing his profits, and their for is in fact wasting resources by not getting the highest yield possible from these resources. He should be attempting to maxamize his utility which in this case would be a higher harvest (from 10 plants) for the same cost.:woohoo: gotta love studying for econ finals [/quote]

Number of plants doesnt mean anything, ive seen one plant that filled a 10x10 area, its all how its vegged. Plain and simple.


----------



## That crazy vancouver guy (Nov 30, 2007)

yup... plain and simple... it all comes down to the grower and what they can harvest with what they got....


----------



## ThinkGREEN (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks guys.....that´s what i mean.
I don´t know how much electricty costs where you guys all come from.
Here in Europe its expensive like crazy... 
I think we config. our grows a little differently because of that. 
We always try to get the most out of a grow.

Edit: Of course it ALWAYS depends on the grower.....thats a fact.


----------



## Hick (Nov 30, 2007)

allgrownup said:
			
		

> just to clarify.....these loose buds were above the canopy.  they are feet below the light though as the colas' just kept growing and growing.
> 
> Hick and others, when you are referring to "training", are you suggesting that when you plan on not Lst'n i should still be training in some fashion like trimmin the plant or doing something else to them?  I have read here that the lower 3rd of the plant does not produce strong bud so i did cut some of these nodes off. However  some of these loose buds can be found around the bottom of the colas as well.  thats what led me to believe it may be light penetration.  That and the fact that these plants grew right up to and surrounded the light when i ran out of space to raise the light, which is up to my ceiling LOL!  these plants really got chewed up to. I'm sure that effected them with stress.
> 
> ...



As far as "I" know, there are two methods of training.. LST (low stress training).e.g. "super cropping", tieing down...and the _NOT so_ much "low stress". e.g. topping, breaking the meristem. 
   If my desire is to observe the plants natural growth, structure. Where training would alter it's natural proggress, then I will trim most all of the lower growth. Especially any smaller branches that don't reach up to canopy level.(I call it "skirting") And flower out only the top 1/2 to 2/3 of the plant,. The part that "is" recieving the light intensity that benefits photosynthesis.


----------



## ThinkGREEN (Nov 30, 2007)

Hick said:
			
		

> If my desire is to observe the plants natural growth, structure. Where training would alter it's natural proggress, then I will trim most all of the lower growth. Especially any smaller branches that don't reach up to canopy level.(I call it "skirting") And flower out only the top 1/2 to 2/3 of the plant,. The part that "is" recieving the light intensity that benefits photosynthesis.



i do the exact same thing...that´s what i mean.....
Very nice explaination.....couldn´t of said it  better.....:woohoo:


----------



## bobbak67 (Dec 2, 2007)

Hick said:
			
		

> Especially any smaller branches that don't reach up to canopy level.(I call it "skirting") And flower out only the top 1/2 to 2/3 of the plant,. The part that "is" recieving the light intensity that benefits photosynthesis.


 
I thought that the photosynthesis was spread throughout the plant as a whole? Light getting to the top sunleaves spreads its energy to all parts of the plant, thus the argument about NOT pruning plants for better light penetration to the lower levels? 

Now Im confused! :doh:


----------



## bobbak67 (Dec 8, 2007)

bobbak67 said:
			
		

> I thought that the photosynthesis was spread throughout the plant as a whole? Light getting to the top sunleaves spreads its energy to all parts of the plant, thus the argument about NOT pruning plants for better light penetration to the lower levels?
> 
> Now Im confused! :doh:


 
Did everyone forget about this thread?? at least my question!


----------



## Hick (Dec 9, 2007)

> Lower growth usually suffers from light deprivation, *due to lighting distance/penetration,* but the actual growth hormones and how/where they are being directed through training, can also play a part.



the plant best utilizes (photosynthesisis) with the leaves closest to the light. IMHO, because that is also where the most growth hormones are being directed.


----------



## jjsunderground (Dec 9, 2007)

keep the lights as close as possible without heat stress. feed heavy bloom fertilizer with high p&k. use bloom boosters. i hope my buds come out dense.​


----------



## clambake (Mar 13, 2008)

photosynthesis, is the process of the leaves turning light energy into energy that the plant can use.  The lights must actually hit the plant, so the lower leaves that don't see much light can't really help the overall plant growth like the top leaves that recieve full sunlight.

So while do to some light reflecting off the walls the lower leaves will do some photosynthesis, it is probablly better to just chop those leaves and let the plant concentrate all its energy on the leaves that recieve full amts of light.


----------

