SOTF420, you obviously haven't tried comparing 'top clones' to bottom. If you had, you'd know what I know; there's no difference. They grow absolutely the same.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Grat3fulh3ad said:
hi Grat3fulh3ad,
Nice to see someone mentioned epigenetics
From what I ve been reading there can be irreversible epigenetic changes and nowadays we have also found that there is such thing as inherited epigenetics , so if someone uses a clone in breeding the offspring will be affected by the epigenetic changes of the parent.
Now how great the epigenetic changes in the mom are and how much of that affects the offspring is whole a different story.
If we talk about a clone that is serving as a mom , used for flower production, and we replace the clone with fresh tissue every year or so we should still see some epigenetic changes over time even if the DNA sequence stays the same (no mutations have happened).
So from my understanding of the newest evolution theories , changes do happen in over time , how intact we can preserve a plant is up to the grower ..but some changes will happen , even if small and undetected , with time.
What about inter-node development?
The quality of the final product may be equal but, in the few clones I've done over the last year, I've noticed a better growth pattern with the top cola verses the side branches.
It seemed to me that the clone from the top cola always produced a plant that was tightly stacked with inter-nodes while the others grew to produce branching similar to a x-mas tree.
What I have been doing this past year is finding a good female in the germed seedlings. I take the top cola as a clone, then the lowest four branches.
So far I have had a 99.99% success rate with cloning.
I then watch the clones to see which ones recover and root fastest.
Being limited in plant count, per law. I only keep two of the five clones for growing, destroying the others.
Most often, the clone from the top cola was one candidate.
Naturally when taking and growing clones is being done on a production line, every surviving clone would grow and flower.
Growing out the donor plant, plus the two clones allows me to stay under my plant count and plan a staggered harvest schedule.
After harvesting the donor plant, I can expect to harvest the two clones approximately two weeks later.
I've been doing this with various strains, alongside the breeding experiment I've documented in my journals.
I find it difficult to discuss my experiences with those of you who grow on a large scale. Your results and observations are different than my small-scale observations. Even the selection of the donor plant is extremely limited inside my grow room.
I'm curious if any large scale growers grow out a large bush, which provides 100's of clones in one collection. Then growing those 100's of clones in one season side-by-side ?
Also, the results obtained by such a field of clones would be vastly different from the results of the million closet growers across the country.
I've often wondered about the seed producers who work their lines under particular conditions. This leads the plants progress to be dependent upon certain conditions, then the people order these seeds and grow them under flouro's in pop bottles tucked inside a cabinet.
Would it be feasible and beneficial if these major breeders developed their strains to grow best under the extreme conditions demanded by closet grows ?
I always smile when I read peoples comments like "my room is 30x30, flooded with 9 1000w hps, fully automated watering systems and a commercial grade CO2 generator."
Then a closet grower asks for advice on how best to grow the same plants under confined conditions.
I long for the day I can simply plant outdoors, without worry.
Anyways, back to the clones. for the average individual, I don't believe this genetic drift thing is a problem since they will just pop a new seed and start over. It's the folks who are producing seeds that long term damage in the DNA would be troublesome.
Thanks for letting me join this conversation.
hi Grat3fulh3ad,
Nice to see someone mentioned epigenetics
From what I ve been reading there can be irreversible epigenetic changes and nowadays we have also found that there is such thing as inherited epigenetics , so if someone uses a clone in breeding the offspring will be affected by the epigenetic changes of the parent.
Now how great the epigenetic changes in the mom are and how much of that affects the offspring is whole a different story.
If we talk about a clone that is serving as a mom , used for flower production, and we replace the clone with fresh tissue every year or so we should still see some epigenetic changes over time even if the DNA sequence stays the same (no mutations have happened).
So from my understanding of the newest evolution theories , changes do happen in over time , how intact we can preserve a plant is up to the grower ..but some changes will happen , even if small and undetected , with time.
Epigenetic changes are triggered by something environmental.
Epigenetic traits are by definition, heritable.
Epigenetic changes are reversible.
There is no epigenetic drift in clones. If your cuttings of cuttings of cuttings are changing over time, then something in your environment is causing it... There should be no change expected genetically or epigenetically if you only take healthy cuts from healthy plants...
Owl mirrror...
The more time that passes, the less difference you will find between the top and a side shoot.
If you take the cuts from a big enough plant which has not been shaded by any neighbors, it would be very difficult to tell the last 4" of a big healthy branch from the last 4" of the top...
The more time that passes, the less difference you will find between the top and a side shoot.
If you take the cuts from a big enough plant which has not been shaded by any neighbors, it would be very difficult to tell the last 4" of a big healthy branch from the last 4" of the top...
If a person were to grow successive generations of plants under indoor lighting that pushed the boundaries beyond what is naturally available from the Sun. And these plants over time developed a thicker leaf to survive, would that be what is considered "epigenetic changes" ?
Would a plant that underwent such evolutionary change grow well outdoors?
Is it beneficial to create strains that might be dependent upon an indoor-only growing environment?
ive grown a single strain since 1992. never kept a mom. just kept cloning. its the exact same as 1992 (very much worth keeping!!!)
i moved some outdoors this summer, 1st time ever. it produced a very different smell which i loved. but why?? UV radiation? rain water?? soil mixture? otherwise, same plant. i cloned it and brought it back indoors. the smell disappeared...
i moved some outdoors this summer, 1st time ever. it produced a very different smell which i loved. but why?? UV radiation? rain water?? soil mixture? otherwise, same plant. i cloned it and brought it back indoors. the smell disappeared...
That is interesting, I wonder how we can bottle those results ;>}
Did you take the clones from plants growing outdoors?
Nope.
That's pretty theoretical but most likely it would.
Most of the lines that do well indoors also do very well outdoors or under glass. It's the outdoor stuff that often isn't great indoors.
No epigenetic effect is permanent. All wash out after various generations of breeding.
If you are starting from a clone from a clone from a clone, etc to begin with then you are probably right because you can't tell the difference.
M
medi-useA
My humble contribution to this discussion...
Cloned plants can thrive...for generations of humans!...perhaps we should look @ Navel Orange plant problems and see if there is evidence there of conditions th@ lead to a degradation of genetic potential or drift..perhaps it could better be described as genetic oscillation dependent on factors as-yet-unknown.
muA
Cloned plants can thrive...for generations of humans!...perhaps we should look @ Navel Orange plant problems and see if there is evidence there of conditions th@ lead to a degradation of genetic potential or drift..perhaps it could better be described as genetic oscillation dependent on factors as-yet-unknown.
muA
yep, clones are clones, the clue is in the name. some roses have been budded (graftig a bud onto a rootstock) for hundreds of years.
subcool doesnt keep mums because he has a plant limit, but he keeps mothers of his plants elsewhere
one thing about clones from different parts of the plant - i have never noticed any difference - but i once read that clones of tissue that has no lignification (woody tissue) have more growth potential than clones of a part of the plant that has lignified
anyone want to comment upon that?
i also read something about 'genetic drift' in the blueberry strain that delays flowering once put to 12/12. i wondered if anyone can shed some light on this?. my Bb clone os pretty slow to start flowering after the flip. it stretches like crazy for a week or so without any sign of flowering.
cheers
V.
subcool doesnt keep mums because he has a plant limit, but he keeps mothers of his plants elsewhere
one thing about clones from different parts of the plant - i have never noticed any difference - but i once read that clones of tissue that has no lignification (woody tissue) have more growth potential than clones of a part of the plant that has lignified
anyone want to comment upon that?
i also read something about 'genetic drift' in the blueberry strain that delays flowering once put to 12/12. i wondered if anyone can shed some light on this?. my Bb clone os pretty slow to start flowering after the flip. it stretches like crazy for a week or so without any sign of flowering.
cheers
V.
Hi Grat3fulh3ad
thanks for the reply
From my understanding not all epigenetic changes are triggered by something environmental :
"The best example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation."
(from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics)
Epigenetic changes are not all heritable , Epigenetic changes may or may not pass on to the offspring as its been proved nowadays , plus :
"These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
You are right , scientists do consider epigenetic changes to be reversible, but theory and practice is a whole different thing
and science and technology may not be there to help the average grower enabling him to reverse certain epigenetic changes of cannabis clones. With humans , cancer tumors and special treatments its different..
I 've only recently looked into the whole epigenetics thing and after quite a bit of reading it seems there are different circles of thought / different theories , and even many scientists disagree on a lot of things regarding this matter so I have to state that I m far from an expert and have only very limited knowledge
but i m wondering has it been scientifically proven that there is no epigenetic drift in clones due to aging ? You got a link?
from what I have read so far regarding epigenetics , DNA methylation etc it seems that this is not the case. If there was no epigenetic drift why do we see increased variation in the gene expression with aging in identical twins studied in controlled environments ?
have a look here:Epigenetic drift in aging identical twins
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10413.full
--
Hey Owl Mirror
If we talk about growing plants that are creating offsprings ,
the changes in gene expression you see over the generations is due to epigenetic changes but mostly due to the new DNA sequence the new generations of plants have which is different that their parents.
In the case of a plant that is grown for years from clone (same clone , or clone from clone) though the leaf shape changes would be considered epigenetic changes (if the leaf shape change is not due to a change in the DNA sequence/mutation).
Well theoretically it would obviously grow worse than plants that have evolved indoors for generations but on the other hand it could grow better in indoor gardens where it has evolved in compared to outdoor 'evolved cannabis'.
Whether its beneficial to create strains that are being grown for generations indoors and have evolved accordingly , well its down to ones needs. One must consider all the consequences though..
thanks for the reply
From my understanding not all epigenetic changes are triggered by something environmental :
"The best example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation."
(from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics)
Epigenetic changes are not all heritable , Epigenetic changes may or may not pass on to the offspring as its been proved nowadays , plus :
"These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
You are right , scientists do consider epigenetic changes to be reversible, but theory and practice is a whole different thing
and science and technology may not be there to help the average grower enabling him to reverse certain epigenetic changes of cannabis clones. With humans , cancer tumors and special treatments its different..
I 've only recently looked into the whole epigenetics thing and after quite a bit of reading it seems there are different circles of thought / different theories , and even many scientists disagree on a lot of things regarding this matter so I have to state that I m far from an expert and have only very limited knowledge
but i m wondering has it been scientifically proven that there is no epigenetic drift in clones due to aging ? You got a link?
from what I have read so far regarding epigenetics , DNA methylation etc it seems that this is not the case. If there was no epigenetic drift why do we see increased variation in the gene expression with aging in identical twins studied in controlled environments ?
have a look here:Epigenetic drift in aging identical twins
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/30/10413.full
--
Hey Owl Mirror
If we talk about growing plants that are creating offsprings ,
the changes in gene expression you see over the generations is due to epigenetic changes but mostly due to the new DNA sequence the new generations of plants have which is different that their parents.
In the case of a plant that is grown for years from clone (same clone , or clone from clone) though the leaf shape changes would be considered epigenetic changes (if the leaf shape change is not due to a change in the DNA sequence/mutation).
Well theoretically it would obviously grow worse than plants that have evolved indoors for generations but on the other hand it could grow better in indoor gardens where it has evolved in compared to outdoor 'evolved cannabis'.
Whether its beneficial to create strains that are being grown for generations indoors and have evolved accordingly , well its down to ones needs. One must consider all the consequences though..
ok, I stand (somewhat)corrected... Genetically pre-programed epigenetic changes do occur during some cellular processes, such as differentiation... these are not the type of epigenetic changes which would be relevant to the discussion at hand, however...
They are ALL heritable... that's the point... If the changes in a cell are not heritable then it was not an epigenetic change... It was just a cellular process...
to use differentiation as an example... Once a stem cell has been epigenetically set to say "default bone cell configuration" by switching Off or On the appropriate gene... then every division will produce more bone cells... heritable change can mean heritable through multiple cell divisions, it does not only mean passed along to offspring...
"remain through cell divisions" = heritable
Also the Wiki article goes on to say
"The modern usage of the word in scientific discourse is more narrow, referring to heritable traits (over rounds of cell division and sometimes transgenerationally) that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence."
Plants are alot simpler than humans...
Provide your plant with everything it needs, in the proper ratios, and you will never have any epigenetic issues... Healthy plants make healthy cuttings... In practice there are cuttings of cuttings of cuttings plants which are hundreds of years old and still produce the same grapes they always did... In practice I and others have kept clones of clones of clones for decades with no changes...
Why disprove a theory which there is ZERO evidence to support it? Just because you can imagine something to be a certian way does not mean someone has to disprove it...
environment... and... Zoology does not always translate equally to botany... Just because something is true for animals, does not make it so for plants...
Last edited:
Sorry , I misinterpreted your post then, yes heritable can also refer to changes that remain through cell divisions. Thanks for clarifying that.
But 'epigenetic changes' are not always heritable if we talk about different generations (not a single organism) and study the offsprings. As you pointed out (correct term usage) these changes in an offspring that are associated to epigenetic changes in the parents must not be called 'epigenetic changes'.. as we talk about a different generation and the DNA sequence is different compared to the parents' ,
one thing is certain we know that epigenetic changes in an organism may or may not affect the offspring , such changes may or may not be inherited in the offspring no matter what term we use.
This has been proved, although some changes are inherited with cell division, its not necessary that they will affect the offspring. They may or may not. This is what I wanted to say.
I agree plants and humans are very different. I also agree that if you provide a plant with everything it needs in the proper ratios etc you will (probably) never see any issues due to epigenetic changes.
Personally I would love to know how lack of sunlight (just artificial lighting) , root restriction (growing in pots) and other factors affect the cannabis evolution..
Some people like Shantibaba like to give a couple months of natural light to his mother/father clones before he replaces them with new ones (that live indoors). This may help avoid any issues/changes in the offsprings that may be due to epigenetic changes in the mothers/fathers as the years go by. Personally I do doubt though that indoor light exposure (even if not total) does not affect things in any way. It may not be easy to tell but I believe it does affect things when it comes to the offspring .
True , plants and animals differ a lot so yeah it could be that. But it would still be nice to see a link that shows proof that this is not the case with plants .
Grat3fulh3ad is right guys. The changes have to be heritable by the definition of the term, which has been narrowed as science's understanding of the phenomenon grew. And heritable most often means through cell divisions. It was a great surprise when they found some epigenetic effects passed down through the generations. And this sort of situation is involved with the environment during the creation of gametes. Keep your environment as perfect as possible when setting seed and besides that don't worry about epigenetics. People on this site don't even understand regular genetics Seems a bit futile to talk on epigenetics but damn it's fun.
As to the epigenetic drift found in adult twins:
This is just a way of saying phenotypic changes. If you had cheese in your room and compared it to the cheese in my grow we would see many difference between the two. The longer they were in the different environments and the more different the environments are the more "epigenetic drift" would be observed. And now compare that to humans who live 80 years instead of 3 months and you can imagine a whole lot more epigenetic drift than we could see in plants. Epigenetic drift can mean one twin getting lung cancer while the other didn't because one was a smoker. They both have the same genotype even though one dies of cancer and the other is healthy. I say keep your plants healthy ESPECIALLY when pollinating. Beyond that, don't sweat the small stuff.
Seems a bit futile to talk on epigenetics but damn it's fun.As to the epigenetic drift found in adult twins:
This is just a way of saying phenotypic changes. If you had cheese in your room and compared it to the cheese in my grow we would see many difference between the two. The longer they were in the different environments and the more different the environments are the more "epigenetic drift" would be observed. And now compare that to humans who live 80 years instead of 3 months and you can imagine a whole lot more epigenetic drift than we could see in plants. Epigenetic drift can mean one twin getting lung cancer while the other didn't because one was a smoker. They both have the same genotype even though one dies of cancer and the other is healthy. I say keep your plants healthy ESPECIALLY when pollinating. Beyond that, don't sweat the small stuff.
Right on, L33t... clones are not, however, offspring...
So the context from which heritability would apply for the purposes of this thread, would have been on the cellular reproduction level... I'm not intending to make any statements at all pertaining to generational heritability, as this is not a breeding thread...
my personal experience, coupled with things I have learned from other's actual experiences, demonstrate to my satisfaction it is not the case with plants. Healthy cuttings of healthy plants will consistently produce the same results for decades, if not centuries...
So the context from which heritability would apply for the purposes of this thread, would have been on the cellular reproduction level... I'm not intending to make any statements at all pertaining to generational heritability, as this is not a breeding thread...
More than any of these things, human selection is the main factor affecting the evolution of cannabis... How well a plant performs in artificial light and in pots will affect the breeder's selection... the actual light or pots will have a very minute effect compared to that factor, imho...
First, show any evidence that it might be the case. The 'drift' in twins as they age is easily attributed to environment, and any epigenetic changes taking place in identical plant copies as they age are also environmentally induced (as I said all along).
my personal experience, coupled with things I have learned from other's actual experiences, demonstrate to my satisfaction it is not the case with plants. Healthy cuttings of healthy plants will consistently produce the same results for decades, if not centuries...
I agree that human selection is the main factor and things like pots and artificial lighting are a much less important factor. No doubt about that.
Like I said , not always from what I read.
Here is an example , unfortunately its not about plants but humans:
"The epigenetic changes occurring during development and aging can be stochastic or depend on environmental factors."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k446716134knu808/
This piece of text above shows that epigenetic changes are not always due to the environment.
So even if you keep the environment the same there may be some random epigenetic changes , and this can happen in identical twins.
I wonder if something similar happens with plants.
I do get your point and yeah practice shows that things seem to work ok with no probs. Still wonder what are the real effects of indoor breeding are in the long term regarding the evolution of cannabis.
well... until you can show any sort of evidence at all of things working as you imagine they might could... I'll continue to operate under the assumption that they work like they've been observed to, and dismiss unobservable theory as moot... FACT is cuttings of cuttings of cuttings of cuttings stay the same unless you fuck them up, and as long as you did not mutate them or give them a disease when you fucked them up, they can be fixed...
Those saying a thing cannot be done should not be interrupting those doing it...
Those saying a thing cannot be done should not be interrupting those doing it...
