Clone of a Clone of a... Degredation Experiment

[Captain Ginyu]

This test has been run for many years already by those of us right here in the community growing the same clone for sometimes well over 20 years. Clone of a clone of a clone ... doesnt change. Can you say TrainWreck.... just as example ... look how long this girl has been passed around I say the test is over the results are in

It wasn't really cloning, more like cuttings.

 

[jeffie]

To me you make no sense with your xerox analogy Captain Ginyu. There is no copying but multiplying the original. A cut DOES have the same genes in it because it IS the original plant (a part of it to be precise). cloning or cutting preserving it is.

 

[Captain Ginyu]

Sorry I couldn't explain it any simpler. "Cloning" is on a cellular/tissue level in a sterile environment. "Cutting" is simply put, (no xerox, ok) taking a piece of a plant and getting it to grow roots. As I explained earlier, the mericloning process, NOT THE SAME!

 

[Smokeythbear]

I always argue this point, after seed you always, always always lose vigor, 50%, and every time you take a clone its 50% less, but after you take a clone of a clone... its only 50% of 50% of 50%, so the first clone is 50%, second 75%, third is 8?% and so on. I guess I'm not a scientist but that seems correct to me. If your continually taking new clones from the same mom that isn't a big deal, what makes it bad is when you turn a clone from the mom, into a mom, take a clone from the clone-mom, then turn that clone into a mom, I would have to imagine the bud would be getting slightly worse at the least every time.

 

[The_Weed_Worm]

I've grown out clones from a mother grown from seed, cloned those out for a few generations, and then went back to the original seed stock to grow out a new mom, and would have to say that clones and seed plants are generally just very different.

Clones need some type of catalyst to create a strong root system along with a generally higher pH, and more nutrients than a seed plant. Clones will flower faster and based on the size of the plant yield well. Seed plants have more natural hormone production and a MUCH stronger root system, so they end up being more robust all around, but this process takes longer, and they need to be vegged for some time so they can be correctly pruned and shaped.

In my personal experience I feel it takes a long time to recognize degeneration of a genetic line by cloning to many times, but I think those who think it doesn't occur are dead wrong. Strain and stability of the genetics of the strain are defiantly a variable here. This thread should really be about clone vs seed, because in my opinion seed plants always grow the best medicine. Just my experience, but you gotta know how to grow that seed, cause it is different than a clone.

 

[alamony2005]

Let this be the end of the debate right here.

If more scientific studies are required to prove no type of degradation takes place please let me know and I will dig through the biology departments stack of books which all state similar stuff.

READ THE ENTIRE PAGE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetative_reproduction

Artificial vegetative propagation

Man-made methods of vegetative reproduction are usually enhancements of natural processes, but range from simple cloning such as rooting of cuttings to grafting and artificial propagation by laboratory tissue cloning. It is very commonly practised to propagate cultivars with individual desirable characteristics. Fruit tree propagation is frequently performed by budding or grafting desirable cultivars (clones), onto rootstocks that are also clones, propagated by layering.
In horticulture, a "cutting" is a branch that has been cut off from a mother plant below an internode and then rooted, often with the help of a rooting liquid or powder containing hormones. When a full root has formed and leaves begin to sprout anew, the clone is a self-sufficient plant, genetically identical to the mother plant. Examples are cutting from the stems of blackberries (Rubus occidentalis), cutting from leaves of African violets (Saintpaulia), and cutting the stems of verbenas (Verbena) to create new plants. A related form of regeneration is that of grafting. This is a process of taking a bud and grafting onto a plants stem. Many nurseries now sell trees that can produce four or more varieties of apples (Malus spp.) from stems grafted to a common rootstock.
[edit]Cultivated plants propagated by vegetative methods
A number of commonly cultivated plants are propagated by vegetative means rather than by seeds. This is a listing of such plants:
Apple
Avocado
Canna
Cannabis
Citrus (lemon, orange, grapefruit)
Date
Fig
Grapes
Hops
Manioc (cassava)
Nut crops (walnut, pecan)
Pineapple
Pear
Poplar
Potato
Strawberry
Sugar cane
Tea
Vanilla
Willow

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Is your point that any clone is only from undifferentiated cells? Even if it is a meristem or branch? I always thought that different materials (species) had different results from cell culture then rooting & shooting. Some species cell culture almost always causes genetic variation, while others zero. Have you actually proven that Cannabis is of the former? We did extensive R&D and could not find any changes at all. What did you actually do? We checked the DNA before and after with marker genes and the Cannabinoid and Terpenoid profiles as well as vigor and yield. As far as I know a cutting or clone is the same thing, I understand the difference in terminology but don't believe a cutting of a cutting of a cutting of a cutting has any differences even after 20 years and hundreds of cycles of clones from clones from clones.
Regardless if you call it cloning or cutting, it is the same, small differentiated pieces or branches that are rooted, they are identical to the mother. Cell culture of undifferentiated cells may introduce differences in the cells but as Cannabis is so hard to make shoots with, no one really uses cell culture anyway to make clones, do they?

Here is a study about the subject:

Assessment of the Genetic Stability of Micropropagated Plants of Cannabis sativa by ISSR Markers.
Lata H, Chandra S, Techen N, Khan IA, Elsohly MA
National Center for Natural Products Research, School of Pharmacy, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Planta Med 2009 Jul 27.
Inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers were used to evaluate the genetic stability of the micropropagated plants of CANNABIS SATIVA over 30 passages in culture and hardening in soil for 8 months. A total of 15 ISSR primers resulted in 115 distinct and reproducible bands. All the ISSR profiles from micropropagated plants were monomorphic and comparable to mother plants, confirming the genetic stability among clones and mother plants. Chemical analysis of cannabinoids, using gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID), was done to further confirm whether the qualitative and quantitative differences in the major secondary metabolites exist between the mother plant and micropropagated plants. Six major cannabinoids - Delta(9)-THC, THCV, CBD, CBC, CBG, and CBN - were identified and compared with the mother plant. Our results clearly showed a similar cannabinoid profile and insignificant differences in THC content between the two types of plants. These results suggest that the micropropagation protocol developed by us for rapid IN VITRO multiplication is appropriate and applicable for clonal mass propagation of C. SATIVA.

Where is the change in the makeup you refer to? How do you find it? What tests did you use?
-SamS

Ahh, good question! And in a scenario of meristem, & mericloning there is slight genetic deviation. These procedures do not completely copy the genes to the offspring, and the only real benefits of doing this is to achieve thousands of plants in very little time.

Orchid nurseries are perfect examples of this. It could take hundreds or thousands of seedlings, several years to produce one or two award quality specimens. Those plants in turn, are mericloned for the guaranteed award quality bloom; however, since mericloning can slightly deviate the genes to the offspring, there are sometimes slightly different plants as a result, (not as good as the parent plant).

In short, it's no different than running copy after copy through the xerox. If you keep using offspring after the other as donors, you'll destroy the original makeup.

 

[Neo 420]

This is nice..... I'll be watching this!!!

 

[David762]

I am skeptical about generational clone genetic degradation. The experiment might wind up being a determination of the impact of the age of the clone's mother in the "offspring's" life cycle. How much is plant physiology affected by hormones (root age?), feeding cycle (nutrient balance?), or lighting regime (veg time versus flower time?)

This sounds like an interesting experiment to pursue, IMHO.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

i know a grower who only grows "skunk"....he said that after like 3 years of running the same clones of a clone they started to turn out worse and worse, less frost less yeild. so he ended up having to backcross with something to get it back to ultra frostyness.

but this also sounds interesting...im running some clones of a clones of a cllones and havent noticed any loss in potency or frost yet....but im only about half a year into running these cuts (pure kush)

Here is a study about the subject:

Assessment of the Genetic Stability of Micropropagated Plants of Cannabis sativa by ISSR Markers.
Lata H, Chandra S, Techen N, Khan IA, Elsohly MA
National Center for Natural Products Research, School of Pharmacy, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Planta Med 2009 Jul 27.
Inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers were used to evaluate the genetic stability of the micropropagated plants of CANNABIS SATIVA over 30 passages in culture and hardening in soil for 8 months. A total of 15 ISSR primers resulted in 115 distinct and reproducible bands. All the ISSR profiles from micropropagated plants were monomorphic and comparable to mother plants, confirming the genetic stability among clones and mother plants. Chemical analysis of cannabinoids, using gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID), was done to further confirm whether the qualitative and quantitative differences in the major secondary metabolites exist between the mother plant and micropropagated plants. Six major cannabinoids - Delta(9)-THC, THCV, CBD, CBC, CBG, and CBN - were identified and compared with the mother plant. Our results clearly showed a similar cannabinoid profile and insignificant differences in THC content between the two types of plants. These results suggest that the micropropagation protocol developed by us for rapid IN VITRO multiplication is appropriate and applicable for clonal mass propagation of C. SATIVA.

thats a damn good experiment...reminds me of being in 3rd grade doing our science experiments lol.

 

[alamony2005]

I am skeptical about generational clone genetic degradation. The experiment might wind up being a determination of the impact of the age of the clone's mother in the "offspring's" life cycle. How much is plant physiology affected by hormones (root age?), feeding cycle (nutrient balance?), or lighting regime (veg time versus flower time?)

This sounds like an interesting experiment to pursue, IMHO.

You would trust a persons dialog on his own findings vs published articles from notable institutions knows for their accuracy? The information is already researched and placed into the public for scrutiny. GO READ. Fuck; this thread has already derailed.

 

[Neo 420]

I learned (I may be wrong) that the only real change or difference between taking clones is the hormones. The are slightly more advance and will give you quicker flowering times. Other than that..A clone is a replica of itself (No DNA change or degradation.)

 

[David762]

Sorry, but your position sounds like nonsense.

Sorry, but your position sounds like nonsense.

You would trust a persons dialog on his own findings vs published articles from notable institutions knows for their accuracy? The information is already researched and placed into the public for scrutiny. GO READ. Fuck; this thread has already derailed.

Clones (as cuttings) of particular cultivars of cannabis have existed for many generations (years) without genetic degradation. Just how many growers clone cannabis the same way that orchids are cloned -- I would bet between a handful to none whatsoever. That is a technique employed by institutional (or large scale commercial) growers, hardly a method used by an almost universally "underground" industry.

 

[alamony2005]

Clones (as cuttings) of particular cultivars of cannabis have existed for many generations (years) without genetic degradation. Just how many growers clone cannabis the same way that orchids are cloned -- I would bet between a handful to none whatsoever. That is a technique employed by institutional (or large scale commercial) growers, hardly a method used by an almost universally "underground" industry.[/QUOTE


What is your point? Wait don't state it, I end my presence in this thread. Go back to school and learn your self.

 

[vaped]

So what about all the elite clone onlys we have. chem 91 that shit is from 1991. Chem d, pre 98 bubba, ecsd, mass super skunk, I again call bullshit. We have breeders who will year after year cross the same two plants. I have plants that have been alive for 3 years that I know for sure are just a cut from a cut cuz I cut em. I dont even grow moms anymore because of plant numbers I have like 28 strains gotta keep em all alive. As soon as they are big enoughf to cut i stick em in rock wool and throw the mom. Wait if clone degredation was true how do we have og kush, trainwreck, dr. kevorkian, green crack, L.a. woman. Simple because if you take a cutting from a cutting its the same. Running chem d now over20 year old strain but yet its still dank.

 

[BudZad7]

Clones of clones of clones!!!

Clones of clones of clones!!!

Hi All! Very Good Info!!!! All I have to say is after 7 yrs of cloning from a OG Kush Tahoe cut, the mother plant that was a gift clone mother to begin with, is Stronger and more potent now....... and very Healthy...and this OG was stressed last year and made a few bananas of pollen on some clones, and there was a GrapefruitXHaze
female clone, and was pollinated with the OG pollen,and that cross is a Resin Bomb!!! So, basically 2 females got it on!! LOL!!!

 

[MrFista]

There is an aspen colony that put paid to two myths.

Myth #1: Clones do not degenerate. They do, but the time frame is in thousands of years. Your experiment would be a waste of effort we're talking about mutations over geological time.

Myth #2. The largest organism in the world is a honey mushroom. From where I'm sitting, a whole forest of cloned aspen (off one root system) has more biomass than the fungi under another forest, had another mycologist admit as much but Stamets persists in his claim.

 

[Mr.Jones]

I always argue this point, after seed you always, always always lose vigor, 50%, and every time you take a clone its 50% less, but after you take a clone of a clone... its only 50% of 50% of 50%, so the first clone is 50%, second 75%, third is 8?% and so on. I guess I'm not a scientist but that seems correct to me. If your continually taking new clones from the same mom that isn't a big deal, what makes it bad is when you turn a clone from the mom, into a mom, take a clone from the clone-mom, then turn that clone into a mom, I would have to imagine the bud would be getting slightly worse at the least every time.

nah you understood something seriously wrong!

Sorry I couldn't explain it any simpler. "Cloning" is on a cellular/tissue level in a sterile environment. "Cutting" is simply put, (no xerox, ok) taking a piece of a plant and getting it to grow roots. As I explained earlier, the mericloning process, NOT THE SAME!

Wikipedia:
"Cloning in biology 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."

There is an aspen colony that put paid to two myths.

Myth #1: Clones do not degenerate. They do, but the time frame is in thousands of years. Your experiment would be a waste of effort we're talking about mutations over geological time.

Myth #2. The largest organism in the world is a honey mushroom. From where I'm sitting, a whole forest of cloned aspen (off one root system) has more biomass than the fungi under another forest, had another mycologist admit as much but Stamets persists in his claim.

very true! sure there is some dedegeneration but its very small and takes for ever to be noticed

 

[Regulator Dave]

What if the clones are NOT well maintained?

What if the clones are NOT well maintained?

Clones of clones of clones for 20+ years is no problem as long as the plants are well maintained and virus free.

-SamS

So do you agree with my hypothesis that a "good" clone line will result in "good" plants and a "poor" clone line will result in "poor" plants?

What kind of degradation have you seen with clone lines that were not well maintained?

Thanks for weighing in on this one Sam! I have your OG Haze x Skunk #1 in my bloom room right now, all 7 feet of her She is cohabiting in a 7 gallon pot with an F13- They are my Hunky 13 woot woot, Thanks YOU

 

[Green lung]

I always argue this point, after seed you always, always always lose vigor, 50%, and every time you take a clone its 50% less, but after you take a clone of a clone... its only 50% of 50% of 50%, so the first clone is 50%, second 75%, third is 8?% and so on. I guess I'm not a scientist but that seems correct to me. If your continually taking new clones from the same mom that isn't a big deal, what makes it bad is when you turn a clone from the mom, into a mom, take a clone from the clone-mom, then turn that clone into a mom, I would have to imagine the bud would be getting slightly worse at the least every time.

You have no clue of what your are talking about, and you are totally wrong.