I didn't realise I would have to explain all this. It's the advanced section so I figured you all would have known about this part already
Your argument makes sense but I think the assumptions you are making about growth will not hold true. For one, the mass of flowering vs veg plants are significantly different, so the root mass when you trim the plant will only support a marginal amount of buds. Also, you admit that the plant will allow the foliage to "catch up" to the root mass. Considering the point about plant mass above, it would seem you are likely only adding time to the harvest date. As the roots wait for the foliage to catch up, they wont be growing much if at all. So in the time the plant took catching up it could have been a week or 2 into full flower mode. But really I think it boils down to the physiology of plants and as I stated above in regards to photosynthesis, you cant add more water without adding more light and co2 to get more energy, its just not possible. So unless you already have more light than the plant can use and a completely enriched Co2 environment, your plan simply wont work.
Youre confusing the plant being at equilibrium with the plant having "restrictions". When in reality, the process you are discussing is restricting root growth in your progress toward boosting the growth rate of the foliage.
I now see where you are getting confused. Once the plant has been pruned down it will be the same size as it would normally be when you start flowering.... Except it has a root mass comparable to a plant of twice the size. I already know this allows the plant to grow faster as I have seen it many times. It's not some unusual phenomenon, in fact I assumed everyone already knew this. I don't understand why you think the larger root mass could only support a marginal amount of bud. It's twice the size, so will easily support the plant all the way up to harvest, and the plant won't be putting any energy in to grow in roots, just bud. Yes, of course it will add time. The amount of time depends how long it takes to fill the area from the point where you would have normally flowered. If the plant is in good health, it's unlikely to take as long as two weeks, but even if it did, the trade off would be that you get a bigger harvest. Yeah the roots won't be growing much, if at all. You say that like it's a negative thing lol. That's the whole point, that's how the foliage/bud will grow faster That last part is just wrong I'm afraid. I have witnessed this many times, and thought it was common knowledge with any seasoned grower. Obviously the plant needs to be in good health. If its sickly and growth is slow because of it then this shouldn't be attempted. Fixing your problems will be the best way to raise yield Everything I just said, I have already said and now I feel the conversation isn't going anywhere. You clearly understand the idea (which is great), but we seem to be disagreeing on whether or not the plant would grow faster with larger roots. This seems to be the only thing we are disagreeing on, and I although I have said several times that it does grow faster as I have witnessed myself, you don't believe me and I have no way to actually prove it. Either you take my word for it or not, I guess that's all it boils down to. I hoped this thread would have ideas bouncing around, and maybe some pot holes mapped out, but all has happened is me explaining it over and over again
Root growth isn't restricted at all, I don't even know what you're talking about now. The root mass would be like twice the size
I happen to really like this idea and I'm not seeing why it doesn't make sense to people. In hydro your root ball generally isn't that restricted. Mine got bigger all the way to near the end of the grow. You also have to think about the thick stem structure that would develop if it's allowed to veg extra long. It's like sucking down nutrients with a fat McDonald's straw compared to a coffee stirring straw. CO2 would help you take full advantage of the big stem/root structure otherwise your foliage would limit how fast you could process nutrients from the roots to supply to the buds. When I first read this I actually though it was going to say, Grow the plants as big as you can in veg then bend them completely over to the ground in a U shape and hold the tops that way till end. That might be equally successful. Not that it hasn't been done, but you would have all the foliage to go with that root structure for processing. If you prune off all those tops you have the roots and stems but not the proper leaf structure for processing all those big roots can supply. CO2 may be the answer to this since it dramatically boosts production in the foliage.
When the foliage plays "catch up", the root mass in effect is restricted because it is not growing during this time. Growth is being restricted. Again, youre equating a plant at equilibrium as being "restricted" which is not true at all. The plant will only take up the water that is being used by the foliage. Its really that simple. Youre thinking more water = more growth. This just simply is not true. All other things being equal. And with that said, I dont understand how you can think it will somehow work.
This is a similar theory to the regeneration method where a plant is harvested at the end of the bud cycle but just enough foliage is left to keep it alive. It is then shocked back into veg growth and grown a second time with the same huge root/stem mass. From what I've seen this doesn't work out. Sort of a zombie plants... lol. The difference with this method being the plant is not brought back from bud cycle. I have to think if regen worked everyone would do it. Who wants to grow the plant all over again if they don't have to? Sorry to thread hijack.
Heres the thing. Your theory might pan out to be true, but it will not be because the root system is bigger, it will be because you topped all the stalks and created many more bud sites. It may take longer, it might not. Youre simply using the space more efficiently.
The bolded is a common misconception. Plants are not humans and dont behave as such. Go do some basic research on plant growth and you'd understand the theory doesnt make sense. Like I said though, might add yield, but people have been topping and scrogging forever and thats what is netting the yield in this scenario. His theory can be boiled down to efficiently using your space. Also, theres the fact that in the time it would take you to fill a screen and veg it up to the light as he originally described you could have filled a screen with more plants in a fraction of the time, topping them all along and creating just as many bud sites. IMO a much better method. Considering all this, I dont understand how you can think this method would be superior to a regular scrog. If this doesnt help I can easily explain a nice little thought experiment of two identical grows, one using a standard scrogging method and one using your method and illustrate how the standard method will almost certainly win out every time.