denverm4x
Well-Known Member
i see. i mean that sounds right, but i could also see how it would deteriorate the original qualities. anyway chris, i like your avatar! very cool
Get a Harvest Every 2 Weeks
- Thread starter Al B. Fuct
- Start date
- Status
daddychrisg
Well-Known Member
Thanks verm....Yeah the debate is always present....
Al B. Fuct
once had a dog named
Like dcg said, a clone is an exact DNA copy of the plant it is taken from. Nothing happens to the DNA of the clone by virtue of cutting it off the mother.
You can replace mums with clones taken from them until hell freezes over- or at VERY least, about 6-odd years- which is around how long I've been doing it with no trouble at all. I sprouted my Sweet Tooth #4 beans in 2002 and have been cloning the strain ever since.
There's no debate amongst the learned on this topic.... anyone who says you can't continuously replace mums with clones of themselves pretty obviously hasn't done it.
You can replace mums with clones taken from them until hell freezes over- or at VERY least, about 6-odd years- which is around how long I've been doing it with no trouble at all. I sprouted my Sweet Tooth #4 beans in 2002 and have been cloning the strain ever since.
There's no debate amongst the learned on this topic.... anyone who says you can't continuously replace mums with clones of themselves pretty obviously hasn't done it.
daddychrisg
Well-Known Member
There's no debate amongst the learned on this topic.... anyone who says you can't continuously replace mums with clones of themselves pretty obviously hasn't done it.
But for some reason...even that is debatable! LOL...clone on..
But for some reason...even that is debatable! LOL...clone on..
Kage
Well-Known Member
lol, i've never done it, but how is that possible? nature never ceases to amaze me. but I'm trying this next: gonna get some (real) good seeds online, grow two and clone those (2 in case one dies) after several cloning generations, I'll try growing the clones in different conditions. my assumption is that they will not take well to new climate and conditions as they are great great grandchidren clones. it's hard to say, but i think that these plants are simply very used to being cloned, after so many years, but again.... i could be dead fucking wrong. :0 .... 
Al B. Fuct
once had a dog named
OK, looks like some folks here have a fundamental misunderstanding of asexual plant reproduction and how DNA and evolution work. Go hit the plant biology books.
If you want to change some character of an organism, you have to change the DNA. The same DNA (and thus instructions for characters) is in all cells of the plant. Cutting a branch off a plant does not change the DNA of either the donor or cutting.
About the only remotely plausible argument for DNA mutation under the controlled conditions of a grow room (which is absent some important DNA mutation triggers like ionising radiation from the sun) I have ever heard regards telomeres.
In the process of aging, telomeres, which are strands on the ends of the DNA double-helix, are said to become 'frayed' in successive copies in asexual reproduction. Now, this hypothesis applies fairly well to humans, where the donor cells can be decades old and have lived through a lot of mutation opportunities. However, in 'rolling' cloning (at least in my op), the donor material is never more than 8 weeks old. I don't keep mums for 6 years and try to keep getting cuttings from them. The entire plant is replaced frequently- it's effectively a new plant, built to the instructions of the one it came from, but consisting of entirely new material to the cellular level.
If you want to change some character of an organism, you have to change the DNA. The same DNA (and thus instructions for characters) is in all cells of the plant. Cutting a branch off a plant does not change the DNA of either the donor or cutting.
About the only remotely plausible argument for DNA mutation under the controlled conditions of a grow room (which is absent some important DNA mutation triggers like ionising radiation from the sun) I have ever heard regards telomeres.
In the process of aging, telomeres, which are strands on the ends of the DNA double-helix, are said to become 'frayed' in successive copies in asexual reproduction. Now, this hypothesis applies fairly well to humans, where the donor cells can be decades old and have lived through a lot of mutation opportunities. However, in 'rolling' cloning (at least in my op), the donor material is never more than 8 weeks old. I don't keep mums for 6 years and try to keep getting cuttings from them. The entire plant is replaced frequently- it's effectively a new plant, built to the instructions of the one it came from, but consisting of entirely new material to the cellular level.
daddychrisg
Well-Known Member
permalink
OK, looks like some folks here have a fundamental misunderstanding of asexual plant reproduction and how DNA and evolution work. Go hit the plant biology books.
If you want to change some character of an organism, you have to change the DNA. The same DNA (and thus instructions for characters) is in all cells of the plant. Cutting a branch off a plant does not change the DNA of either the donor or cutting.
About the only remotely plausible argument for DNA mutation under the controlled conditions of a grow room (which is absent some important DNA mutation triggers like ionising radiation from the sun) I have ever heard regards telomeres.
In the process of aging, telomeres, which are strands on the ends of the DNA double-helix, are said to become 'frayed' in successive copies in asexual reproduction. Now, this hypothesis applies fairly well to humans, where the donor cells can be decades old and have lived through a lot of mutation opportunities. However, in 'rolling' cloning (at least in my op), the donor material is never more than 8 weeks old. I don't keep mums for 6 years and try to keep getting cuttings from them. The entire plant is replaced frequently- it's effectively a new plant, built to the instructions of the one it came from, but consisting of entirely new material to the cellular level.
NO argument here!
OK, looks like some folks here have a fundamental misunderstanding of asexual plant reproduction and how DNA and evolution work. Go hit the plant biology books.
If you want to change some character of an organism, you have to change the DNA. The same DNA (and thus instructions for characters) is in all cells of the plant. Cutting a branch off a plant does not change the DNA of either the donor or cutting.
About the only remotely plausible argument for DNA mutation under the controlled conditions of a grow room (which is absent some important DNA mutation triggers like ionising radiation from the sun) I have ever heard regards telomeres.
In the process of aging, telomeres, which are strands on the ends of the DNA double-helix, are said to become 'frayed' in successive copies in asexual reproduction. Now, this hypothesis applies fairly well to humans, where the donor cells can be decades old and have lived through a lot of mutation opportunities. However, in 'rolling' cloning (at least in my op), the donor material is never more than 8 weeks old. I don't keep mums for 6 years and try to keep getting cuttings from them. The entire plant is replaced frequently- it's effectively a new plant, built to the instructions of the one it came from, but consisting of entirely new material to the cellular level.
NO argument here!
denverm4x
Well-Known Member
haha i don't mean to be dissenting, i am just typing what i think i have read. i have just heard/read that clones of clones of clones just eventually water down the line and are not as desirable as.... should i say, the seed plant? anyway i am just interpreting what i have been learning. it makes sense that clones are exact DNA replicas, but again, it also seems to make sense that the copy of a copy of a copy is not as good as the original.
also, so you take your clones and put them directly into flowering? is that stressful for the plant, like, creating less bud or less quality? i don't know too much about SOG, or the way you are doing it anyway with the flowering cycles.
also, so you take your clones and put them directly into flowering? is that stressful for the plant, like, creating less bud or less quality? i don't know too much about SOG, or the way you are doing it anyway with the flowering cycles.
daddychrisg
Well-Known Member
also, so you take your clones and put them directly into flowering? is that stressful for the plant, like, creating less bud or less quality? i don't know too much about SOG, or the way you are doing it anyway with the flowering cycles.
I don't mean to just jump in with this, but I will just throw out my thoughts on this. When you take a clone from the mom, that clone is as old as the the mother was at that time. So, if your mom is 4 weeks old, then so is your clone...So once you have roots, the clone is actually very mature... Probably about 6 weeks mature! So it is more then ready to go into bloom...
I don't mean to just jump in with this, but I will just throw out my thoughts on this. When you take a clone from the mom, that clone is as old as the the mother was at that time. So, if your mom is 4 weeks old, then so is your clone...So once you have roots, the clone is actually very mature... Probably about 6 weeks mature! So it is more then ready to go into bloom...
ClumsyNinja
Active Member
Al B, what do you think the feasability of running SoG with something like a cylindrical Omega Garden? Would I actually need 4 of the systems to properly make it work? Your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
LoudBlunts
Well-Known Member
WOW!!!! why would you buy 4 omegas? thas like 360 plant sites times 4
you dont need that many!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you dont need that many!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ClumsyNinja
Active Member
Omega sells the smaller Volksgarden, which holds about 80 plants. To properly do the SoG, I would think there would be need of four (i.e., the four different cycles of growing in the SoG system).
Of course, to do so would require about $8G for the four cylindrical garden machines.
80 plants, if they put out about an ounce apiece, would give forth approx 5 lbs every two weeks running a proper SoG. That would heal a lot of sick folks.
Of course, to do so would require about $8G for the four cylindrical garden machines.
80 plants, if they put out about an ounce apiece, would give forth approx 5 lbs every two weeks running a proper SoG. That would heal a lot of sick folks.
daddychrisg
Well-Known Member
Omega sells the smaller Volksgarden, which holds about 80 plants. To properly do the SoG, I would think there would be need of four (i.e., the four different cycles of growing in the SoG system).
Of course, to do so would require about $8G for the four cylindrical garden machines.
80 plants, if they put out about an ounce apiece, would give forth approx 5 lbs every two weeks running a proper SoG. That would heal a lot of sick folks.
The thing is that you are only looking, or asking about one piece of the system..The amount of mothers and the amount of cloning that you would have to keep up with would be more then a full time job...There would have to be a crew of folks tending to the needs of each stage of the plants...Other then that, fuck yeah it would work!
Of course, to do so would require about $8G for the four cylindrical garden machines.
80 plants, if they put out about an ounce apiece, would give forth approx 5 lbs every two weeks running a proper SoG. That would heal a lot of sick folks.
The thing is that you are only looking, or asking about one piece of the system..The amount of mothers and the amount of cloning that you would have to keep up with would be more then a full time job...There would have to be a crew of folks tending to the needs of each stage of the plants...Other then that, fuck yeah it would work!
ClumsyNinja
Active Member
Very good point, daddy, thank you. What would be the most feasible - yet most output - one could expect to do on a solo basis?
I have the $10K to invest, and considering different systems, looking for the least amount of work with the greatest output. SoG seems to fit the bill.
Your thoughts please?
I have the $10K to invest, and considering different systems, looking for the least amount of work with the greatest output. SoG seems to fit the bill.
Your thoughts please?
daddychrisg
Well-Known Member
We are highjacking Al's thread....You should start a new thread on the topic....I'll be there...C
daddychrisg
Well-Known Member
But to answer your question and also add to this thread, I think Al pretty much has it answered....
ClumsyNinja
Active Member
You are correct; sorry if I led away from the thread. I started one to entertain ideas for my own operation: $10,000 Best Grow Room Ideas
Al B. Fuct
once had a dog named
Yes, now you're hijacking! 
I like the Omega but the production difference between directly lighted cylindrical 'floorspace' and good-ol' flat floorspace with efficient reflectors just doesn't justify the outrageous per sq ft cost of the Omega. It'd take a spell for the Omega to pay for itself.
I like the Omega but the production difference between directly lighted cylindrical 'floorspace' and good-ol' flat floorspace with efficient reflectors just doesn't justify the outrageous per sq ft cost of the Omega. It'd take a spell for the Omega to pay for itself.
Al B. Fuct
once had a dog named
You won't need to spend $10K to build a system that will make more weed than you can work with on your own. I reckon mine can be duplicated for about 1/3 that figure- and I have a hard time doing all the work by myself as it is.
A young ambitious person might be able to do 2x what I do but who the hell wants to be handcuffed to a grow op 7 days a week? I haven't had a holiday in years- my op will only run unattended for about 3 days, and that's only when I'm in between batches of cuttings, which need watering 2x a day...
- Status