A discussion on questioning accepted wisdom

I would like to share the beginning of a discussion I am having with my own grow mentor about an oddity I have seen with the trellis method of growing. Don’t worry, I don’t think its bad. I just see things while doing it that seem significant to my brain but I can’t place what makes it significant. And since I am the only one seeing this I have to ask others. This one seemed a little more interesting so I am cleaning it up (was in email) and reposting it here because I would like your thoughts. I will try to drop supporting links where I can since Richard and I just finish each others sentences, brothers from different mother, etc.

The point though for the grey-beards is that I think there might be something about this “feature” or artifact of growing that way that might be used to do even better…somehow. I know it is completely different than any other method I have seen or tried (the “feature”). Here is what I said to my mentor to start it:
Richard; I know I have said before I wish you either lived here or did a trellis grow yourself as you would see things I am seeing but cannot convey and probably 10x times the stuff I am seeing anyways. Sometimes I see stuff that its like its trying to tell me something but I just can’t hear it. One of those things I know I tried to describe and failed because its too…vague I guess is that unlike every other SCRoG/trellis/whatever I have seen, one unique (and until now kinda useless) “feature” or side-effect of this method is the whole plant ends up being totally supported by something other than itself. Once it is trellised at the veg-bloom bridge, its total weight is supported by the trellis and not just that, by the end of stretch, all the weight of every single branch is supported too, meaning nobody or very few have to hold themselves up anymore.

This explains one commonly-seen thing with this trick which is the spidery-thin branches with enormous buds on them that could never exist under normal conditions. See this all the time and the only reason I can think of for it is that since the plant no longer has to expend energies/sugars to support plant strength, it goes into the buds instead. Hey, its a guess from a certifiable nut so take that for what its worth.

To me, that much is more or less established …very-probable fact in my head and in truth, is about as proven as it will get to me this time around. What got me this morning though was a totally unrelated conversation on the grow forum, the typical stuff about how big a pot to use and folks were talking about using these huge, 10+ gallon pots for autos and of course I was snorting derisively because I had photographic proof of the Fistbud:

plant from last time that clocked in at just over 7 feet and it grew in a 3.5 gallon pot for like a year.

So on the face of it, that would seem to give lie to the other claims and I let it go at that but it got me thinking…7 foot plant in that little bit of soilmix (the bottom 3 inches were straight hydroton being Hempy buckets) seems pretty…illogical based on commonly-accepted wisdom but proof is proof and I held that proof in my own two hands so there is no denying it happened/worked.

Now herein lies the question: I wonder if that big-assed trellised plant, with so many tops they could not easily be counted, this plant that grew to 7 feet, the plant that made FistBud…I wonder if for all that “plant” and weight, because it was suspended most of its life that it just needed less rootball,. like it grew it until it didn’t need more. Thats all I can think of the explain this…

Think about it and if it seems true, let your mind think of what other possibilities this might imply. There might be a way to use or leverage this “feature”…