Any Existing Evidence that Clones upon Clones Degrade Yield or Quality?

svchop889 said:

keeping a single mother for two long was what decreased the quality of the clones I thought because the clone is as old as the mother it came from and If your cloning off of a plant that's been around for ages the quality will diminish because of the age of the mother.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you partially... I have a 3 year kali mist plant that I take clones from every several weeks and the potency (end result) is always roughly the same (within +/- 0.5%), but I've never tried cloning from older branches just because it's harder for me to root (maybe I should try it...).

svchop889 said:

Is new growth on an old plant as old as the rest of the plant despite the fact that its new?

Click to expand...

I know this is an old thread, but no, the newest growth (apical meristem) is totally fresh, pure genetics. That's the whole basis behind tissue culture, and why it's getting such a strong look from the cannabis community at the moment.

One thing I will note, that I have personally experienced: About a year ago I was in the middle of re-working my room, upgrading the ventilation system. During this time I had maxed out all available space in my veg room, but I had a mother of some damn fine genetics that I didn't want to lose, I threw her in the budroom telling myself that I'd remove her each night and put her out in the basement where she could still get enough light to keep from flowering. I kept up this routine about as well as you'd expect a pothead to, and she had many sporadic nights with 12 hours of darkness. Luckily I had another mother of the same strain still in the veg room.

Some pistils sprouted, but I figured I could just put her back in the veg room for a couple of weeks and all would be fine. Yeah. A few weeks later I took cuttings. I took them from both mothers of this strain, but didn't label which came from which mother. I then threw the mother plant in the budroom figuring I didn't need two. She proceeded to throw out long, loose, airy buds that looked like loose grape clusters, very unappealing. The other one I had in there of the same strain was just like normal, good dense buds. It all smoked fine, but looked like polar opposites.

Fast forward two months, I throw the next generation of vegging plants into the budroom and about four weeks later I clearly see the same loose, airy structure that mama had developed. To this day, clones from that plant are still loose, airbud. I've kept it to experiment with, because it interests me. Thought I'd throw that out there.

Cloning of a mother for years will degrade a plants genetics over time to the point it will drift. One trick I learned from Shantibaba is to put the mother out in the spring and let her soak the rays something to do with the spectrum of light the sun produces in the spring will in a sense rejuvenate the genetics. Trust me it dose work.

Wolverine97 said:

I know this is an old thread, but no, the newest growth (apical meristem) is totally fresh, pure genetics. That's the whole basis behind tissue culture, and why it's getting such a strong look from the cannabis community at the moment.

One thing I will note, that I have personally experienced: About a year ago I was in the middle of re-working my room, upgrading the ventilation system. During this time I had maxed out all available space in my veg room, but I had a mother of some damn fine genetics that I didn't want to lose, I threw her in the budroom telling myself that I'd remove her each night and put her out in the basement where she could still get enough light to keep from flowering. I kept up this routine about as well as you'd expect a pothead to, and she had many sporadic nights with 12 hours of darkness. Luckily I had another mother of the same strain still in the veg room.

Some pistils sprouted, but I figured I could just put her back in the veg room for a couple of weeks and all would be fine. Yeah. A few weeks later I took cuttings. I took them from both mothers of this strain, but didn't label which came from which mother. I then threw the mother plant in the budroom figuring I didn't need two. She proceeded to throw out long, loose, airy buds that looked like loose grape clusters, very unappealing. The other one I had in there of the same strain was just like normal, good dense buds. It all smoked fine, but looked like polar opposites.

Fast forward two months, I throw the next generation of vegging plants into the budroom and about four weeks later I clearly see the same loose, airy structure that mama had developed. To this day, clones from that plant are still loose, airbud. I've kept it to experiment with, because it interests me. Thought I'd throw that out there.

Click to expand...

This post in itself illustrates both the possibility of genetic drift and also the unlikeliness of genetic drift in a properly controlled environment. As i had posted previously in this thread, any new growth on a plant is a copy of old growth, and anything we do to disrupt the copy process can result in a permanent mutation to the DNA in the subject plant. In this case, we can observe genetic drift DURING the lifetime of the plant. Wolverine's plant was stressed from his changes to it's environment, and the DNA was permanently corrupted during the copy process. There is now no way to get the original traits to display from this plant, and all cuttings taken from it will show these traits. If he was able to house this plant with his other mothers, it would likely still be providing high quality clones of the original genetics. This is one reason why it is so important to maintain good, consistent, botanically sound growing practices.

Just as easily as genetics can be degraded from stress, genetics can be preserved from proper care. In theory, we could keep a strain preserved indefinitely, cloning from clone after clone each generation with no change to DNA. Life itself is resistant to mutation, and if it wasn't we would not have species running around this planet that were here millions of years ago. All we have to do as growers is provide a healthy and consistent environment for our mothers to live in, and use proper sterile cloning methods, and our genetics should carry on as long as we'd like. The plants are very good at making perfect copies of themselves as long as we don't interrupt them.

I originally believed that successive clones would generally decrease the important traits is this what I have read and it makes sense to me as a biologist. Mostly do to genetic drift, random mutation, and hormonal based gene expression and the timing of the cuts. I'm talking about taking a cutting from a cutting, then another cutting from that one, etc. Not taking a cutting of a cutting. But, it seems that this isn't really the case in plants....

Re: Will sucessive plant clones show genetic degradation?

Date: Thu Nov 8 00:07:40 2001
Posted By: David Hershey, Faculty, Botany, NA
Area of science: Botany
ID: 1005191948.Bt Message:
Apparently not if some discretion is used and any obviously inferior plants
that occasionally appear in the cloned population due to mutation are rogued
out. In fact, some clones, such as 'Red Delicious' apple will occasionally
produce mutant branches (called sporting) that can give rise to new and
superior cultivars.

Many fruit tree, rose, and flower bulb clones are well over 100 years old. I'm
not sure which plant is the oldest clone in cultivation. Several fruit
cultivars from the 1600s still exist. The 'Barlett' pear is said to have
originated in 1765 under the name 'Williams' Bon Chretien' but some think that
the 'Barlett' pear may have even originated before 1600. Tulips 'Zomerschoon'
and 'Duc van Tol' supposedly date back to 1620.

According to Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest wild plant clone is the
triploid kings lomatia or kings holly (Lomatia tasmanica) at 43,600 years. It
is not known for sure if the plant has remained genetically identical all those
years but a 43,600 year old fossil leaf appears identical to living specimens.
Quaking aspen clones are thought have survived over one million years (Mitton
and Grant, 1996).



It is important to remember though that if your taking cuttings of cuttings, the health of the cutting also plays a role. If your cutting from a sickly plant, there is a chance that gene mutation would increase.
In terms of cuttings from mothers, I think you do have genetically identical plants but one important thing to remember again is the age of the plant, hormones, and genetics. Marijuana is an annual plant. Yes, it won't flower without a change in light regime but it is "designed" so to speak to flower and die within about 9 months. Therefore I think that having a mother for years is genereally not a good idea. Besides, I like growing new varieties of plants.

svchop889 said:

I guess the question is how long is the appropriate amount of time to keep a mother plant. One season, and then replace with one of its own clones?

Click to expand...

Perhaps something like that.

I was having some problems with clones off a 1 1/2YO mother. Not with the finished product, but the clones were taking longer to root and with a much lower success rate.

The moms were both LST'ed and bonsai'ed. At the end, they looked like one of Ansel Adams' trees. LOL, Thick gnarly trunks with a few sprigs on the top.

Long story short, took 2 nice looking clones and made new mothers. Everything back to normal AFA rooting and success rate.

From now on, I think I will start new mothers every year.

Wet

Wolverine97 said:

I know this is an old thread, but no, the newest growth (apical meristem) is totally fresh, pure genetics. That's the whole basis behind tissue culture, and why it's getting such a strong look from the cannabis community at the moment.

One thing I will note, that I have personally experienced: About a year ago I was in the middle of re-working my room, upgrading the ventilation system. During this time I had maxed out all available space in my veg room, but I had a mother of some damn fine genetics that I didn't want to lose, I threw her in the budroom telling myself that I'd remove her each night and put her out in the basement where she could still get enough light to keep from flowering. I kept up this routine about as well as you'd expect a pothead to, and she had many sporadic nights with 12 hours of darkness. Luckily I had another mother of the same strain still in the veg room.

Some pistils sprouted, but I figured I could just put her back in the veg room for a couple of weeks and all would be fine. Yeah. A few weeks later I took cuttings. I took them from both mothers of this strain, but didn't label which came from which mother. I then threw the mother plant in the budroom figuring I didn't need two. She proceeded to throw out long, loose, airy buds that looked like loose grape clusters, very unappealing. The other one I had in there of the same strain was just like normal, good dense buds. It all smoked fine, but looked like polar opposites.

Fast forward two months, I throw the next generation of vegging plants into the budroom and about four weeks later I clearly see the same loose, airy structure that mama had developed. To this day, clones from that plant are still loose, airbud. I've kept it to experiment with, because it interests me. Thought I'd throw that out there.

Click to expand...

Ah ha! I think that purty much answers it. The question of genetic drift needs to be taken in context...I mean, in an ideal scenario where you take clones from your own lovingly cared-for moms, generation after generation should stay virtually identical, probably for longer than you can stand to smoke the same stuff.

But a stressed mom will produce a stressed clone, right? One that's weaker in some way/s than the plant was before it was stressed? And any progeny of that stressed clone will carry that weakness, right? (I'm asking, here, not telling...)

So if I give you some of my janky clones from my stressed mom, a couple of which you pass to someone, who takes clones and passes a few to someone else...a good strain could very quickly get a bad name, and the result of all this passing around of substandard clones, while probably not technically "genetic drift," is the same: a plant that was good is now not so good.

I think that what people experience as genetic drift can be often be attributed to stress somewhere in the life of a plant that reached them as clones with a largely unknown provenance.

i have pulled clone from a clone from a clone around 110 times over the past 18 years.......clones are taken 6 times a year for the past 18 yrs same strain

Over the years the strain has gotten better.... not worse....I have never kept a mom plant

I just got cuts from the UK to the original Exodus Cheese....its clone only and been around for years

colonuggs said:

i have pulled clone from a clone from a clone around 110 times over the past 18 years.......clones are taken 6 times a year for the past 18 yrs same strain

Over the years the strain has gotten better.... not worse

Click to expand...

exactly finding strain seems to veg faster an flowering times are shorter

From what I've been told by older growers I know that your mother plant should be replaced every year, regardless of how healthy it is. Especially if you're taking a bunch of clones off of her at once. The stress can hinder her genetics and cause the clones taken from there on to be poor. What I do know is that if you throw your mom in bud and try to throw her back into veg to get new clones after harvest you seriously degrade the quality of your mother.

I have heard absolutely no proof that clones from clones degrade unless the clone before it was sickly or mutated in some way. I have heard that you can take clones from your previous mom to make a new mom, but seeds are suggested. Then again, the people who explained this to me are old hippies, and I haven't been growing very long. Seems logical, though.

genes are genes my compadre cloning from clones DOES NOT diminish anything, you clone from a clone of a clone of a clone, and its still going to be a clone of the original mother, I and a couple of friends have kept a plant going for about 25 years, still tastes, smells, and bakes like it used to

Jmayne Chronic said:

genes are genes my compadre cloning from clones DOES NOT diminish anything, you clone from a clone of a clone of a clone, and its still going to be a clone of the original mother, I and a couple of friends have kept a plant going for about 25 years, still tastes, smells, and bakes like it used to

Click to expand...

The key is avoiding major stress factors. I posted earlier my experience with one clone strain that I maintain which has experienced a genetic drift and now appears to be locked in that perverted state of growth. I'm not going to repost it all, but you can go back and read if you like.

AK47 was started around her....maybe 10 years ago. It was the perfect plant for a lot of us and was cloned many times...many many times. Mother plants, clone of clone. It still grows some very nice buds, but they are weak now. Several people are starting to comment on this now. Not sure if its the plant or just better/stronger varieties being grown now?

well wolverine, i will agree with you there. if its not in an ideal environment then yes it will start to mess with the plant, but if you put it that way its like that with all plants, the only difference is that with freshly popped seeds and maintaining the plant takes a lot of energy on the plants end to grow.Its supposed to, thats why its got all it needs to develop in the seed, the "instincts" persay to root down,and start sprouting leaves. a clone has to be nudged into rooting down, which is NOT ideal for the plant to do, its puts all of its energy for a while towards growing roots, which are not naturally supposed to exist in this part of the plant. its trying to provide energy to both the leaves and root growth in an unnatural way,its trying to support a growing root system AND three or four growing sets of leaves. Needless to say this can take alot out of a plant, thusly not giving it a good headstart, which as we all know is not going to make a full seedling grow to its full potential, so why wouldnt a clone do the same? I always treat my clones like an injured plant needing to be nursed back to health, which if you think about it, it is. It just needs proper care and good conditions to perk them up, and use them to their full potential. Plus if your clones keep dying off then just hermy one out, and let it pollinate itself, all the same genes, with seed stock.

i think most of you have the wrong idea here. maybe im wrong but from experience i can tell you that if you maintain a mother and take clippings periodically, as long as your mom stays healthy, you will keep getting the same traits.

however, if you start with a seed and take a clone, tehn flower the main plant ....now clone that clone and flower the bigger one ....then clone that clone and flower that bigger one ...etc .,...you will get different traits each time. not neccessarily different but certain traits will be expressed more every time you do this.

example:
start with a genotype. qwerkle.
choose a phenotype thats characteristics are short, compact and purple. flower said plant but first take a cutting. the next cutting may be more purple and more compact. do this again and the next may be even MORE compact and more purple....
use the phenotype that stretches alot and by the fifth time you might be stretching 5x in flower.

i have also had this happen and NOT take on the original traits but rather more traits that i DIDNT see in the original plant (mom).

Jmayne Chronic said:

well wolverine, i will agree with you there. if its not in an ideal environment then yes it will start to mess with the plant, but if you put it that way its like that with all plants, the only difference is that with freshly popped seeds and maintaining the plant takes a lot of energy on the plants end to grow.Its supposed to, thats why its got all it needs to develop in the seed, the "instincts" persay to root down,and start sprouting leaves. a clone has to be nudged into rooting down, which is NOT ideal for the plant to do, its puts all of its energy for a while towards growing roots, which are not naturally supposed to exist in this part of the plant. its trying to provide energy to both the leaves and root growth in an unnatural way,its trying to support a growing root system AND three or four growing sets of leaves. Needless to say this can take alot out of a plant, thusly not giving it a good headstart, which as we all know is not going to make a full seedling grow to its full potential, so why wouldnt a clone do the same? I always treat my clones like an injured plant needing to be nursed back to health, which if you think about it, it is. It just needs proper care and good conditions to perk them up, and use them to their full potential. Plus if your clones keep dying off then just hermy one out, and let it pollinate itself, all the same genes, with seed stock.

Click to expand...

Who's clones are dying off? Not mine... And if you let one "hermie out", you'll end up with plants predisposed to go hermie again.

This cracks me up,anyone have any pics of these supposed genetically drifting plants?..........................I bet not.
I've been doing successive cuts offa this plant for over 20 years with zero drift.

taint said:

This cracks me up,anyone have any pics of these supposed genetically drifting plants?..........................I bet not.
I've been doing successive cuts offa this plant for over 20 years with zero drift.

Click to expand...

Please don't insinuate that I'm lying about my experience. I just chopped down the "drifted/damaged gene" plant yesterday, and I have several clones of it that I just transplanted. The difference between this plant and its source is that it now consistently grows "air bud" instead of the nice dense nugs that I get from its undamaged sister. Due to a labeling snafu I have to flower all of them to sort out which clones came from which plants so that I can salvage the strain. I've even looked into tissue culture as a last resort if something goes wrong here.

I don't lie, what reason would I have to mislead people about this? Go back and read my comments here, I'm not saying that taking clone after clone will degrade genetics, these plants experienced acute stress at a critical time just prior to cloning and now three cycles later they still carry the mutation. But I don't post pics so I must be a liar.

Don't get all worked up,sorry if I offended you.
I would truely love to see some pics of this drift,comparative pics of before and after would just settle this now wouldn't it.