The flowering quality of mother plants

Good morning fellas,
I was told ICmag were the experts so here's my question:
If I have mother plants that have been cut once for cloning, is there going to be a difference between the mother's quality and yield, versus the fresh clone's quality and yield, if put into flowering?
By the looks of the mommas, I'd say no, but please do inform me of your opinions and knowledge thanks.

No. As long as the mother is healthy it will produce equal quality as its clones.

Okay cool beans, same for yield then?

In biology, cloning is the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually.

Click to expand...

Take the word "clone" very literal. Identical.

I've had similar results from mothers and clones that are fairly close in age. I'd be concerned if the mother was very old. Genes may be the same but the plant may be worn out.

I'd raise you one better, and say flowering clones vs. flowering from seed is better, at least in my experience. The clones can be thrown into flower quicker than seed, which need to reach maturity, yeilds seem to be better IMHO because they are easier to train from earlier age, and if you flower the seed mom before you flower cuts of same plant, you know a little more of what to expect and what she likes throughout her flower cycle.


PS... my oldest mother is going on 5 years now, and she is a clone of a clone of a clone.... no difference from day one. Keep them healthy, and they don't change. Also, I see no sign of drift, in fact, IMHO, I don't buy into that "genetic drift from age" thing. Enviroment and disease is what changes plants.... IMHO again.

Well you convinced me, in they go . Thanks for the help y'all.

I fert/nute and train my mothers significantly differently than what/how I treat my "production plants". That said, gram for gram, square foot to square foot, it has been my experience that the production from mothers has always been less than stellar. Buds are smaller, coloration is more pale, not many big buds (like very few 3+ grammers) and unless you remove the bottom 25%--lots of larf.

I occasionally will toss moms in the production cyclle, but I also expect a lower ticket for those buds (around $2k-2500--which is a deep discount compared to what my top drawer commands).

I normally will clone her 100% and toss the remains away--or cull her and replace her with a new one.

Cheers!

Alright well that's kind of what I was thinking. Everybody is telling me that the clone will be like the mother and hence the mother like the clone. But I've seen myself that mother plants, despite excellent health, often turn out like you said, less punch and yield in the overall plant.. But I only have an example from a mother that has been clone to death prior to 12/12. We will see how this one handles it, it has only been cloned once and still has a bunch of it's goodstuff growth.

ManyClouds said:

I'd raise you one better, and say flowering clones vs. flowering from seed is better, at least in my experience. The clones can be thrown into flower quicker than seed, which need to reach maturity, yeilds seem to be better IMHO because they are easier to train from earlier age, and if you flower the seed mom before you flower cuts of same plant, you know a little more of what to expect and what she likes throughout her flower cycle.


PS... my oldest mother is going on 5 years now, and she is a clone of a clone of a clone.... no difference from day one. Keep them healthy, and they don't change. Also, I see no sign of drift, in fact, IMHO, I don't buy into that "genetic drift from age" thing. Enviroment and disease is what changes plants.... IMHO again.

Click to expand...

im agreeing with this guy.. ive had a few mothers that are prob like the 100th cut generation. with no variation. if anything ive dialed it in and its better then ever..

I think that diseases .. bugs.. and not transplanting enough cause plants to get shitty..

AlterEgo860 said:

im agreeing with this guy.. ive had a few mothers that are prob like the 100th cut generation. with no variation. if anything ive dialed it in and its better then ever..

I think that diseases .. bugs.. and not transplanting enough cause plants to get shitty..

Click to expand...

I used to think that plants maintained "100% genetic purity" and each successive generation of root cuttings (aka clones) would be the "exact replication" of it's mother (original source).

Well--let me introduce an interesting "complication" to think about--by quoting two posts from this thread--https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=5982993#post5982993

EclipseFour20 said:

In theory, a clone of a clone of a clone of a clone....(times 100 generations) should be equal in all respects to the original donor/"seed-plant"...of course that assumes that all generations will experience identical environments. Every year my environment changes...as does most of ours.

As growers, we respond to Root Aphids, Spider Mites, Broad Mites, Fungus Gnats, etc with pesticides (some more excessive than others), remedies and magic potions to trick the plant to activate its Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR). The plant's SAR response (either induced by nature or from magic potion) has an effect on future generations of clones...which means, "all clones are not equal".

These handful of abstracts should quash any thoughts that clones of different generations remain "genetically pure". Examining how SAR effects subsequent generations is easy to understand...without getting into the scientific details of genetics.

Next-generation systemic acquired resistance--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22147520
Herbivory in the previous generation primes plants for enhanced insect resistance--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22209873
Descendants of primed Arabidopsis plants exhibit resistance to biotic stress--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22209872

If SAR response of one generation can effect subsequent generations--then what other things are effected?...Potency? We don't know.

Cheers!

BTW...I do not discriminate, as I make mamas from seeds and from cuttings/clones.

Click to expand...

EclipseFour20 said:

Only--

The studies I cited concluded things a bit differently. The time frame was rather instant since a plant's "stress memories" were transferred to subsequent generations.

Most of us are aware of the plant's Systemic Acquired Resistance and how it can be our friend. So I researched this question, "if a mother plant's SAR is activated...then do the SAR attributes transfer to the new cutting/clone?" The answer I found is YES.

This transgenerational SAR was sustained over one stress-free generation, indicating an epigenetic basis of the phenomenon. (1st doc)

Here, we show that induced resistance was associated with transgenerational priming of jasmonic acid-dependent defense responses in both species, caused caterpillars to grow up to 50% smaller than on control plants, and persisted for two generations in Arabidopsis. (2nd doc )

When transgenerationally primed plants were subjected to an additional priming treatment, their descendants displayed an even stronger primed phenotype, suggesting that plants can inherit a sensitization for the priming phenomenon. (3rd doc)


So if SAR attributes are transferred (environment) then what other attributes are transferred from donor plant to clone? Probably more than we suspect...is my guess.

I am not a geneticist but I kinda understand the following conclusion:

Stress-induced changes in histone variants, histone N-tail modifications, and DNA methylation have been shown to regulate stress-responsive gene expression and plant development under stress. Transient chromatin modifications mediate acclimation response. Heritable, epigenetic modifications may provide within-generation and transgenerational stress memory (Figure 1). It is unclear how much of the stress-induced histone and DNA modification changes that have been observed to date may be epigenetic in nature because little is known about their mitotic or meiotic heritability. Abiotic stress-induced epigenetic changes might have an adaptive advantage. However, stress memory could have a negative impact on crop yield by preventing the plant from growing to its full potential. Thus, stress memory has implications for the use of seeds from stressed crop to raise ensuing crops by the farmers, breeding for stress environments and in situ conservation of plant species. Recent progress in understanding DNA methylation and demethylation, histone modifications, small RNAs and in developing powerful and versatile tools to study these epigenetic processes makes it possible to critically analyze epigenetic stress memory and harness it for crop management and improvement.

Source: Conclusion paragraph--http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139470/

It appears, that some "stress memories" kinda have a life of their own.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

So...since SAR can be induced by many things--simple things like adding aspirin to the water, compost tea foliar applications...and in more complex concoctions like organic fungicides/insecticides.

So...if SAR triggers (altered DNA) can be transferred to subsequent generations (as proven above--in both seed and "clone" form), then what other things are transferred? Ergo...it seems that argument that "clones maintain genetic purity" is not absolute--and the 100th generation specimen will not be "exactly the same" as the original donor (mama of the 1st generation clone). Close, similar--but not exactly, and certainly not "pure".

I know, I know....who am I to believe? Simple "facts" or my lying eyes?...LOL. I think science trumps my "lying eyes"--people smarter than me have established that: subsequent generations (both seed and clone varieties) contain genetic attributes that are BOTH "inherited" (like original mama's DNA) and "acquired" (like environmental "stress memories").

Complications, what to do?....I run seed lines every so often. Why?..."new blood" and "phenos". Hard to run the next hot $train if you run the same old gear and never change/experiement, besides--the best phenos I discovered always came from seedlines...not one pheno ever came from a bunch of clones I clipped from the same mama (potential mamas....yes, but never a "pheno"-like when a desirable recessive trait becomes dominant).

Cheers!

I've tested this since posting to this thread. I ended up with a few spare flowering spots last run and used 3 not very old (6 months max) mothers I was replacing. 3 different sativa dominant strains. In each case I had multiple plants of the same strains and starting size to compare.

I wouldn't do it again unless I had to. In each case the interior of the plant was dense with small mother style growth. It was persistent and required a lot of pruning to keep clear. 2 out of the 3 were significantly stunted after stretch. I didn't bother finishing them. Nothing wrong with the one I did finish in the end, but not an ideal way to use growing space.