Freak0Nature
Member
i feel your argument about sums it up. im most definately going with cloning the clones of clones, have yet to hit my first attempt, but i will update on this forrum or a journal when i do it for anyone that has questions
cloning the clones of the clones of clones
- Thread starter Freak0Nature
- Start date
I know this is a bit long-winded, but let me take a crack at this:
If exposed to excessive radiation, the DNA in a human cell can become degraded to the point where it becomes cancerous. If you were to use the genetic information in this cell to produce a clone (take Dolly the sheep for instance), you would have corrupt genetic code. If you were to clone the genetic material from a healthy, non-cancerous cell, you would get a human that develops to be the same as the original. The fact that both healthy and diseased cells can live in the same organism and both be derived from the same base genetic code can be applied to plants as well.
If we apply the same idea to plant cells, consider an offshoot from the main stem of the plant that contains slightly different genetic information. If the alteration in genetic information degrades the quality of the branch, then a clone grown from a clipping off this branch would be of lesser quality. But the same situation could produce a slightly better clone as well. It may not be genetically identical (though it could be), but it will likely be so very similar to the original genetic code that there is no perceivable difference in terms of potency, quality, bud sizes, taste, etc. Obviously, if you were to expose the plant to excessive radiation as with the animal cell example, you could see genetic degradation to the point of having a diseased plant.
Under good conditions, you could clone a clone and the difference in genetic code would be minimal if any, and given such an insignificant difference, you would expect not to notice any difference. If you did notice a difference, you could decide whether the difference was good or bad and clone only those that had actually improved.
Does anyone take issue with this? Do I not understand my cellular biology well enough?
If exposed to excessive radiation, the DNA in a human cell can become degraded to the point where it becomes cancerous. If you were to use the genetic information in this cell to produce a clone (take Dolly the sheep for instance), you would have corrupt genetic code. If you were to clone the genetic material from a healthy, non-cancerous cell, you would get a human that develops to be the same as the original. The fact that both healthy and diseased cells can live in the same organism and both be derived from the same base genetic code can be applied to plants as well.
If we apply the same idea to plant cells, consider an offshoot from the main stem of the plant that contains slightly different genetic information. If the alteration in genetic information degrades the quality of the branch, then a clone grown from a clipping off this branch would be of lesser quality. But the same situation could produce a slightly better clone as well. It may not be genetically identical (though it could be), but it will likely be so very similar to the original genetic code that there is no perceivable difference in terms of potency, quality, bud sizes, taste, etc. Obviously, if you were to expose the plant to excessive radiation as with the animal cell example, you could see genetic degradation to the point of having a diseased plant.
Under good conditions, you could clone a clone and the difference in genetic code would be minimal if any, and given such an insignificant difference, you would expect not to notice any difference. If you did notice a difference, you could decide whether the difference was good or bad and clone only those that had actually improved.
Does anyone take issue with this? Do I not understand my cellular biology well enough?
Freak0Nature
Member
long winded but fantastic reply.. +rep for ya mate. good argument, Thanks! lol
I definately agree w/ you skunkman, the genetics would stay exactly the same in each clone, the only difference from clone to clone might be the quality of your mother plant, which might lead to a plant not being as good as the previous. But the strain itself will be the exact same.
statik
Well-Known Member
Along the lines of the dolly the sheep explanation...
I think age is something to consider. I am sure plants are only able to live for a "finite" amount of time..just like everything else (even Redwoods). So if you are taking a clone from a 4 month old plant, your clone is actually 4 months old. If you grow that out for 2 months then take another clone of that clone, your plant is really 6 months old..so on and so forth. If you do this for years then the cuttings you have would actually be years old.
So maybe this could be a contributing factor to so called "degradation" that other growers speak about after a handful of runs. Maybe the particular original mother was only genetically programmed to live for so long. After a set amount of time passes the plant begins to die off as it normally would have if it had just been growing from seed all the while. The same thing would happen if you continuously cloned "Dolly" the sheep.
Just a theory.
In other words, I am for "Do it." I just think that some people are overlooking this one factor when it comes to degradation.
I think age is something to consider. I am sure plants are only able to live for a "finite" amount of time..just like everything else (even Redwoods). So if you are taking a clone from a 4 month old plant, your clone is actually 4 months old. If you grow that out for 2 months then take another clone of that clone, your plant is really 6 months old..so on and so forth. If you do this for years then the cuttings you have would actually be years old.
So maybe this could be a contributing factor to so called "degradation" that other growers speak about after a handful of runs. Maybe the particular original mother was only genetically programmed to live for so long. After a set amount of time passes the plant begins to die off as it normally would have if it had just been growing from seed all the while. The same thing would happen if you continuously cloned "Dolly" the sheep.
Just a theory.
In other words, I am for "Do it." I just think that some people are overlooking this one factor when it comes to degradation.
sherriberry
New Member
the clones think they are as old as the first plant that was cloned from.
It is the same as if you kept a mother around.
So, both parties here are right.
If you had a plant that for some reason has a short life span even if kept in veg, then, clones of clones of clones will start to fail EVENTUALLY.
But, 4 or 5 generations... i dont think thats a problem at all.
Ive heard of people doing 20.
Second thing is, you could just keep a couple permenant mothers, and take 50 clones off them every week or 2 AND take clones from the clones.
I dont know how many clones you think youll be needing, but i can take 50 off a healthy mother that is only 5 months old, and take 50 more in about 2 weeks.
The most important point tho that i want to clarify (just incase you didnt know) is that you dont want to take cuttings from plants once they are in the bloom phase... it takes WAY longer for the clones to make roots.
Clones should be made from only plants that are in veg lighting, unless you want to waste all kinds of time.
It is the same as if you kept a mother around.
So, both parties here are right.
If you had a plant that for some reason has a short life span even if kept in veg, then, clones of clones of clones will start to fail EVENTUALLY.
But, 4 or 5 generations... i dont think thats a problem at all.
Ive heard of people doing 20.
Second thing is, you could just keep a couple permenant mothers, and take 50 clones off them every week or 2 AND take clones from the clones.
I dont know how many clones you think youll be needing, but i can take 50 off a healthy mother that is only 5 months old, and take 50 more in about 2 weeks.
The most important point tho that i want to clarify (just incase you didnt know) is that you dont want to take cuttings from plants once they are in the bloom phase... it takes WAY longer for the clones to make roots.
Clones should be made from only plants that are in veg lighting, unless you want to waste all kinds of time.
Calijuana
Well-Known Member
I know the cuttings are coming from the same old plant, but the foliage/cells the plant produces have just been created, so technically, aren't the cuttings only however old they took to grow themselves?
a cutting is grown from a mother, takes a week to grow and be ready to take it. the cutting is taken and then roots, is that plant now only 1 week old? the cells were only produced a week ago..
please correct me if i'm wrong, its just a shot in the dark here
statik
Well-Known Member
If you take a cell from a 15 year old kid...that cell (actually the DNA in the cell) is 15 years old is it not? So what happens when you, I, or plants grow? It's called cellular mitosis.
Cells copy/divide from the previous cell. Its just a copy of what was already there. So if the genetic code in cell was 15 years old, and it goes through mitosis then the new cell is just as old as the cell it split from. Well, the cell itself is new...but the DNA is the same age as what was in the previous cell.
Make sense?
Calijuana
Well-Known Member
ledgrowing
Well-Known Member
i have been doing this for years started with 6 seeds now could over grow my self if i wanted to a no mother plants there is no dif in plants although if u get over zelouse u can have to many clones and the plants tend to enter flower smaller with weak stems but thats all on u and over time like say 5-10 years plants with degrade a little but by that time u will want new strains anyway smoke on my friend but if u think about it a clone is a a sexual reproduction of its mother so why would it be any dif? so every time you clone a clone it is just like the original but i wouldnt do this forever but a longh long time is no prob
I'm going to remain within the realm of speculation so long as I am inexperienced with growing. I have a single clone and intend to take clones of it when it gets big enough.
I've read a couple of posts recently that suggest that a branch coming off of a plant that is a certain age is also that age. I disagree. New leaves are not as old as the plant itself. New branches are also new. I would argue that the idea that the cells derived from another cell are as old as the parent cell would allow me to state that I am not 25 years old. In fact, because I as a being derived all of my cells from the combination of my parents' gametes, I am really as old as the cells that came together to create me. And since they would be as old as the gametes that came together to produce them, I am not really as old as either of them but I am as old as life itself.
Does this make rational sense? Of course not. But it does get tricky to establish the true age of cells. I won't pretend for a moment that I have a good answer for you guys, so I'll just wait for someone with more experience with clones weigh in on the viability of recursively cloning clones. Can it be done indefinitely?
EDIT: Forgot to insert break tags. :-/
I've read a couple of posts recently that suggest that a branch coming off of a plant that is a certain age is also that age. I disagree. New leaves are not as old as the plant itself. New branches are also new. I would argue that the idea that the cells derived from another cell are as old as the parent cell would allow me to state that I am not 25 years old. In fact, because I as a being derived all of my cells from the combination of my parents' gametes, I am really as old as the cells that came together to create me. And since they would be as old as the gametes that came together to produce them, I am not really as old as either of them but I am as old as life itself.
Does this make rational sense? Of course not. But it does get tricky to establish the true age of cells. I won't pretend for a moment that I have a good answer for you guys, so I'll just wait for someone with more experience with clones weigh in on the viability of recursively cloning clones. Can it be done indefinitely?
EDIT: Forgot to insert break tags. :-/
Lazer
Member
Can you take cuttings from a flowering plant? I was thinking of germinating a buncha seeds and putting them straight into a flowering cycle, then taking the ones that were female and taking cuttings from those and sticking them in a veg box. So i have one group flowering straight from seeds while the other group of cuttings are vegging, that way i guarentee im vegging female plants? plus im getting a small yeild while i wait for my real plants to veg completely? is this a feasible plan? thanks in advance for any help.
statik
Well-Known Member
You CAN root flowering cuttings. You would want to make sure you cut off lower branches of course where the rooting hormone still has a chance to exist within the plant during flowering. Flowering cuttings are VERY hard to root due to the lack of said rooting hormone. I personally would just take cuttings off of the vegging plants, root them (much easier/faster) and then put THOSE under 12/12. This will tell you which ones are female without having to deal with trying to root a plant that wants to grow buds. Hope this helps...kind of in a hurry so sorry if this is a bit jumbled.
~Statik~
~Statik~
Lazer
Member
thanks for the info statik, how old should the plants be before i attempt to do this?
statik
Well-Known Member
As long as they are vegging you can take cuttings. Just so that your plants are established I say about 5 - 6 weeks at least IMO. I don't personally use clones..I have..but I prefer to start from seed for some reason. I like to see what the plant is doing right from the first day I suppose. Doing it the way I talk about is going to take a bit of time though. Still, prolly not as long as it would to root flowering cuttings...especially if you have never done it before.
Well...thanks to who ever +repped me on this thread. Sadly it doesn't count till you move up in rank around here I guess.
Well...thanks to who ever +repped me on this thread. Sadly it doesn't count till you move up in rank around here I guess.
Lazer
Member
that would have been me with the +rep, i guess i can stop doing that until i have a higher rank.Well...thanks to who ever +repped me on this thread. Sadly it doesn't count till you move up in rank around here I guess.
thanks again for the info, greatly appreciated
Lazer
weedyoo
Well-Known Member
well you are at 4 cycles what happens when you are at 100 you will see the plant changes.
statik
Well-Known Member
Lol, nice theory.
I see your point in that sense...but I was not talking about the cell being the same age as the parent cell..but the DNA contained within. The cell itself is obviously new.
The DNA however, is the same genetic code that has been there since conception. Be it pollen meeting pistil or sperm meeting egg. As the cells divide to form whatever living thing...the DNA is copied from old to new cell..is it not?
DubsFan
Well-Known Member
Actually, many flip to flower for a few days then take cuttings. Many feel the cutting will produce roots much faster if taken from a plant that has recently been put into bloom.