How many times can you clone?

somebody1701

Well-Known Member
There's no scientific basis and no basis in my experience for your position. If you want to pretend growing from seed is "not 100%" that's fine, but healthy clones are as good or better than seeds, IMO. I've grown from both many times. It's all about the health of the plant and how you veg it. In fact, I started 3 plants from seeds and 8 from clones this grow and they all look great.

Qualifying your personal, limited experience with something vague like "a different level" is snake oil, IMO. And you've as much as admitted you have no clue as to the real difference, just talked to people "on a different level."
 

bryan oconner

Well-Known Member
some people take there items to be tested so they have a very good idea what they are talking about .very obvious some people never stepped a foot in the door of a testing center . any why bother get it tested waste of money if your using it your self . and who cares unless your on a different scale might look very good and strong sorry to tell you it wont test the same see,d vs clone if you smoke it you more then likely will not notice any difference at all , some of us are not just stoners some people do this on a much higher scale so these people might know a big more then tent grower , so it looks like I pissed somebody off in a private message spend a few bucks get yours tested then pm me back with your lab reports I wont tell you I told you so . not a big deal chillax smoke one have fun that's why your on here to get opinions . I could be wrong with every thing I posted numbers from iron labs don't lye and had to many lab reports over the years done about 6 a month in mi its fucked up every body grows if its not the best of the best your fucked
 

Dr. Who

Well-Known Member
interesting article. we still have a lot to learn about plants. kind of humbling
Semi interesting for a limited group of plants that can reproduce by "spreading roots".......Not a related botanical plant genus to what we grow.

Even though when cloning , you are taking a exact copy. After time things can change,
Environment. lighting added UV, or virus.
Damaging plants genetic material I have seen first hand that after pro longed cloning , you can run into few problems of mutant clones , unhealthy plants or plants that get sick easier etc etc
Improper conclusion. In reality it is NOT any kind of genetic shift.
Marijuana only can be infected by a rather small and select amount of virus's. They do not change genetic's past the plants immune system.
The other 3 things you list would be strictly environmental shifting! NOT genetic.
You might damage a plant by UV and damage the genetic material. That is NOT genetic shifting! It's genetic damage!

Yes people growing in larger scales will see a difference over time ,, its like saying can your plant catch a cold from you ???
In theory a virus is a cold so do plants catch viruses ..

We here people say they have kept same strain for 10 years seriously ??? i highly doubt it in most cases one may keep strains for a couple years then move on as your body gets immune to that high..

Or to say its impossible for strain to get effected

Evolution my friends , Ask your self why the banana is in a world of hurt ? its clone after clone after clone :)

o_O :wall:

If you actually knew about what you were saying.....You would not say that! What you say says you don't understand genetic's.

Kept strains for years? Some here have and I'm one. I can guarantee the only "shift" ever seen is environmental, and environmental does not mean genetic.

Evolution happens over millions of years! The plant is not "evolving" in front of your eye's!
Rapid evolutionary response is seen in the animal world. Specifically fish that are changing to the rapid change in global warming.
Plants are responding by those not able to grow well in the changing climate. Simply die off and are replaced by plants that do well in that climate. Kind of a "migration" and not a genetic shift!

You may actually get to see some of that in your life time as moderate to cooler climate plants will move farther north and more tropical plants will grow in those area's that supported the mod to cool climate plants....

If your still paying attention, I gotta ask. Did you even read my post on the same page as yours?
What didn't you understand on that?
 
Last edited:
A virus is a piece of genetic instructions, usually in a protective coat. Virus particles are tiny; a cell can manufacture and contain as many as a thousand of them before breaking open. They were first discovered when biologists observed that some disease-causing agents were able to pass through a filter too fine for bacteria. They can be small because they contain almost none of the machinery of a cell, only a smallish quantity of DNA or RNA.

Viruses are not living things. When they are outside of their host cell, they are just very complex molecular particles that have no metabolism and no way to reproduce. In our computer metaphor, they're like software with no hardware, floppy disks or diskettes without a computer. Having no independent metabolism they can remain viable indefinitely, under the right circumstances. "Some of them can even be crystallized, like minerals. In this state they can survive for years unchanged — until they are wetted and placed into contact with their particular hosts" (8).

The viruses that infect bacteria are more specifically called bacteriophages, or simply phages. The kind and amount of genetic instructions in phages vary from 3,600 RNA nucleotides to 166,000 DNA nucleotide pairs (9). To restate these dimensions in terms of our computer analogy, the computer viruses that infect handheld calculators range in size from 900 bytes to over 40 kilobytes. For comparison, the simplest handheld calculator (a bacterium) has about 200 kilobytes of stored programs.


Herpesvirus by Linda Stannard: All the Virology on the WWW
The viruses that infect eukaryotic cells vary in size also. The poliovirus has 7,600 RNA nucleotides; the vaccinia (cowpox) virus has 240,000 DNA nucleotide pairs (10). To use computer terms again, the computer viruses that infect personal computers range in size from 1.9 kilobytes to 60 kilobytes. For comparison, a very simple personal computer (a yeast cell) has genetic instructions equivalent to about 8 megabytes. An advanced personal computer (a human cell) contains about 1.5 gigabytes of stored information, counting the backup copy and the "silent" DNA.

When a virus attaches to its host cell, the host may take the whole virus into its cytoplasm where the virus's protective coat is removed. However, some bacteriophages use a different invasion method. They remain outside the cell and a chemical trigger causes them to inject their genome into the host's cytoplasm. Either way, the virus's genome enters the cytoplasm of the host cell.

Once inside, the virus causes the machinery of the host cell to enter one of two cycles, the lytic cycle or the lysogenic cycle. In the lytic cycle, which leads to cell degradation, the host begins to carry out the reproductive instructions in the invading virus's genome. Those instructions are, in summary, "make more of me." The host becomes a slave to the invader; it drops everything and begins to manufacture copies of the virus. After many copies have been made, the cell breaks open and dies, and many viruses are released. This is the normal way in which a virus causes symptoms of disease in its host.

In the lysogenic cycle the host cell does not make more viruses, but simply harbors the entire viral genome in the cell, usually by incorporating it into the cell's genome. If the virus is an RNA virus, as many are, the RNA must first undergo "reverse transcription" into DNA. While harboring the viral genes, the cell may grow and multiply normally, carrying the new instructions harmlessly along with it. A virus carried in this manner is said to be latent. Recently scientists have learned that even during latency, some of the virus's genes can be expressed
 

Chorse

Well-Known Member
like I said some people are on a different level then others currently I don't even clone its not even worth it to me I need to have every thing the best of the best quality has to be better then everybody else it may take longer but in the long run well worth it and se,ed will pull about 30 to 40 % more then a clone . I am not talking a pee wee plant 1 or 2 foot tall I am talking 6 footers with a min of 4 months veg if a person were to do baby 3 footers or less may not notice any difference . this is my opinion and from experience , have not cloned a plant for my self in a few years its not worth all the time electric I know It will not be 100 % mabe 80 or 90 good not 100
You're delusional.
 

Maxman and Fiddler

Well-Known Member
BZZT! WRONG! I strongly disagree with Max's idea!

Mj does not produce "connected clones" !!!! Other plants that do this are Sassafras Trees and Strawberries for example!

The researcher Mr. Olds says near the end -

The tissue-specific mutations affected mainly genes involved in cell death, immune responses, metabolism, DNA binding and cell communication. Olds think that this may be because many of the mutations are harmful, and the tree reacts by destroying the mutated tissues or altering its metabolic pathways and the way it controls its genes, which leads to further mutations.

That's a big point in any "connected clone plant" in research sense then! This "issue" has yet to be found in any other plant cloning done. MJ does not, and can not "self clone" by it's root system.

The ONLY way to get a TRUE "genetic" shift in a non connected plant clone, is by pollination and reproduction from a plant outside the genetic of that strain!

Environmental shift is the plant "shifting" to a growth pattern that was more how one of the contributing parents were grown in.
In other words. If the plant you have is say, a 50/50 cross of a Sativa and an Indica that was breed in a neutral growing environment. You pop the seed and grow in a warmer and moister environ.. As you take clones and grow them out. The clones will over time. "Shift" to most likely grow more sativa like.....It (the clones) will grow more like the dominate trait of the plant that grows better in that environ.

Understand that? That's "environmental shift"! It is in NO way a "genetic" shift...

I have plants that have been cloned for decades.
Great response Dr Who, I respect your opinion! The part of your response that I don't agree with is:

"The ONLY way to get a TRUE "genetic" shift in a non connected plant clone, is by pollination and reproduction
from a plant outside the genetic of that strain!"


I firmly believe the genome of a marijuana plant can be altered by both chemical and physical influences. I can't specifically cite the alleles that are more conserved than others, but i know there are less conserved sequences within the genome that are subject to mutations based on factors other than pollination. You may not see differences in phenotype, but I'll bet the genotype is definitely different every 5 cloning generations.

I have a strain of Sour Diesel that I've been carrying for 20+ years via lateral cloning. It's phenotype is identical to the original parent (although yields have decreased). Similarly, I've cloned a strain of Vortex for three years that has changed so much (it was treated aggressively for mites) that it doesn't even resemble the parent. Not having sequencing data on either, I can't prove the genetic differences, but when I when I see phenotype differences I suspect genotype differences, which I call genetic shift.

When funding for the research into this plant becomes more plentiful, I think the answers to these questions will be settled.
 

Chorse

Well-Known Member
Great response Dr Who, I respect your opinion! The part of your response that I don't agree with is:

"The ONLY way to get a TRUE "genetic" shift in a non connected plant clone, is by pollination and reproduction
from a plant outside the genetic of that strain!"


I firmly believe the genome of a marijuana plant can be altered by both chemical and physical influences. I can't specifically cite the alleles that are more conserved than others, but i know there are less conserved sequences within the genome that are subject to mutations based on factors other than pollination. You may not see differences in phenotype, but I'll bet the genotype is definitely different every 5 cloning generations.

I have a strain of Sour Diesel that I've been carrying for 20+ years via lateral cloning. It's phenotype is identical to the original parent (although yields have decreased). Similarly, I've cloned a strain of Vortex for three years that has changed so much (it was treated aggressively for mites) that it doesn't even resemble the parent. Not having sequencing data on either, I can't prove the genetic differences, but when I when I see phenotype differences I suspect genotype differences, which I call genetic shift.

When funding for the research into this plant becomes more plentiful, I think the answers to these questions will be settled.
I'll take that bet. I have over 30 generations of the same plant. Guess what? Same plant.
 

Maxman and Fiddler

Well-Known Member
I'll take that bet. I have over 30 generations of the same plant. Guess what? Same plant.
And you know that because you have the genetic sequence of generation 1 and generation 30 and the dna sequences are identical? Or, you know that because the plant "seems" like the same plant, based on your opinion, between the 30 generations?
I stated that I have a diesel strain I've been carrying forever and it's very stable. I've had other strains that aren't as stable and change significantly between generations. Not being argumentative here, just wanting to understand more what you mean by "Same plant".
Thanks Chorse!
 

Chorse

Well-Known Member
Why plant 'clones' aren't identical -- ScienceDaily
There's some good info in this article for those interested. It's a short read.
Interesting... The plant choice was probably favorable to what they were looking for. I mean, if you are going to study clone deviations, I would think you would choose a plant noted for deviants. So it will be even more interesting when the expand...maybe to weed. Over and above that they seemed to conclude that the DNA mutations were the plants effort to improve itself.
 

Chorse

Well-Known Member
And you know that because you have the genetic sequence of generation 1 and generation 30 and the dna sequences are identical? Or, you know that because the plant "seems" like the same plant, based on your opinion, between the 30 generations?
I stated that I have a diesel strain I've been carrying forever and it's very stable. I've had other strains that aren't as stable and change significantly between generations. Not being argumentative here, just wanting to understand more what you mean by "Same plant".
Thanks Chorse!
That's cool. I can take you even further back. This strain has been being cloned since the early 1990s and I was lucky enough to have walked to a room where it was being smoked.in the mid 90s. My friend has been cloning it since then and has gotten numerous others started with its clones. I am going on my 7th year of growing it almost exclusively. So conservatively, it had 60 generations of clone creating clones. I also trimmed these plants for a couple years before I started growing them myself. So yeah..my opinion. I do know the plant and have known it intimately for one of its three cloning decades. Same plant.
 

KryptoBud

Well-Known Member
Interesting... The plant choice was probably favorable to what they were looking for. I mean, if you are going to study clone deviations, I would think you would choose a plant noted for deviants. So it will be even more interesting when the expand...maybe to weed. Over and above that they seemed to conclude that the DNA mutations were the plants effort to improve itself.
Maybe, that article is probably 5 or 6 years old.
I don't have plants as old as some of you guys in this thread, but I have one that i've been cloning 4 or 5 years and haven't noticed a difference. I don't keep a mother plant so they're all a clone of a clone. I'll keep growing it until i notice a difference. If and when that day comes, I'm certain I got my money's worth outta that seed.
 

cindysid

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty much a newbie to cloning compared to a lot of you guys. I'm on my 4th generation of clones on 10 different strains. I just started growing indoors this year. I did a little cloning outdoors but not a whole lot since i grew a lot fewer plants and no way to keep mothers. I'm finding that my quality is improving. I'm sure this is due to environment and the organic nutrients I'm using. I reuse my soil and it is obviously doing a better job than the original batch since it is full of good microbes. I screwed up my clones a couple of grows ago and had to make new ones 3 weeks into flower. That was a mistake I don't intend to repeat since it took them several weeks to reveg; but so far I think cloning is the answer for me Now if I can just decide which of my many strains are the keepers. I have a hard time parting with any of them!
 

rob333

Well-Known Member
i see a difference right a way. plant your see, .d clone from it . put the clone right next to the see., d and have both of them tested . who will win ? the clone will test slight less . and yield less think i am full of shit try it have them tested . i know its an a copy of the mother for some reason clones pull less and test slightlyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less strong . go ahead and bash me unless you have tried this and had them tested you will have no idea .
lol 9 years of growing clones will win it take 30 days for a seed to mature so that 30 days of no flowering if you take a clone and run 12/12 by week 2 it will be budding so there fore seeds will be 30 days behind a clone
 

rob333

Well-Known Member
i see a difference right a way. plant your see, .d clone from it . put the clone right next to the see., d and have both of them tested . who will win ? the clone will test slight less . and yield less think i am full of shit try it have them tested . i know its an a copy of the mother for some reason clones pull less and test slightlyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less strong . go ahead and bash me unless you have tried this and had them tested you will have no idea .
do your research next time
 

rob333

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty much a newbie to cloning compared to a lot of you guys. I'm on my 4th generation of clones on 10 different strains. I just started growing indoors this year. I did a little cloning outdoors but not a whole lot since i grew a lot fewer plants and no way to keep mothers. I'm finding that my quality is improving. I'm sure this is due to environment and the organic nutrients I'm using. I reuse my soil and it is obviously doing a better job than the original batch since it is full of good microbes. I screwed up my clones a couple of grows ago and had to make new ones 3 weeks into flower. That was a mistake I don't intend to repeat since it took them several weeks to reveg; but so far I think cloning is the answer for me Now if I can just decide which of my many strains are the keepers. I have a hard time parting with any of them!
just seed a male and pollen them
 
Top