Who knows where urban legends and myths come from???? I don't even keep mothers. I just take a few cuttings from the plants before I put them in 12/12. Been doing it this way for a while now. They actually seem to get better after a few generations.
Very interesting, why not just keep a mother? you must have two rooms, since some would be on 12/12 and others vegging.Who knows where urban legends and myths come from???? I don't even keep mothers. I just take a few cuttings from the plants before I put them in 12/12. Been doing it this way for a while now. They actually seem to get better after a few generations.
That, completely. Sums it up perfectly.
I do have 2 rooms. It can be a pain in the ass IME to keep mothers. I have to have a veg area anyway so why not just take cuttings from my vegging plants before I flip them?
That's what I do too - take cuttings of the oldest before they flower.
It's the easiest and most efficient way that I've found to grow. Mothers can get big and I don't want to have to prune roots and all that jazz. It just works the best IMO.
Trust me, you won't go back to keeping moms around. It's soooooooo much easier not messing with mother plants.Its understandable. I just like the idea of having the original mother, but its the same difference, just different method. Maybe Ill give it a try and see how it works out
I guess it depends on your situation. First off, I don't need to have clones available 24/7 (although I can take a cutting pretty much anytime I need as it is). Mothers can take up a lot of space, space that I and many others don't have. I always see people say that cloning a clone of a clone is bad but this is pretty much the only way I've ever done it even when I did keep moms in the past. They get tired and lose their vigor and pretty soon I have to replace the mom anyway. Guess how I did it; that's right, I took a cutting off of her! There are literally hundreds of people on here that do perpetual grows and don't keep moms. Please explain why you think that cloning clones isn't a good practice if you would.
I know people will clone a clone and have done so for years with no reported loss in vigor or potency. I've heard two analogies describing this practice; cloning gives you the same exact genetic makeup as the mother, AND I've also heard that cloning a clone is like making a copy of a copy. Eventually you'll start to see some degradation in quality (or some genetic drift based on environmental stress).I guess it depends on your situation. First off, I don't need to have clones available 24/7 (although I can take a cutting pretty much anytime I need as it is). Mothers can take up a lot of space, space that I and many others don't have. I always see people say that cloning a clone of a clone is bad but this is pretty much the only way I've ever done it even when I did keep moms in the past. They get tired and lose their vigor and pretty soon I have to replace the mom anyway. Guess how I did it; that's right, I took a cutting off of her! There are literally hundreds of people on here that do perpetual grows and don't keep moms. Please explain why you think that cloning clones isn't a good practice if you would.
People often make the analogy of "copy of a copy" but it doesn't work this way with cloning. You aren't making a copy of anything. You are taking a piece of the actual plant. You aren't changing the DNA or any of the plants makeup. You aren't even copying it. People make that assumption because of xerox copies. Those do in fact lose quality after many copies of copies but cloning isn't the same thing at all. I find that clones actually become more potent and better after a couple of generations and up to a certain point. I agree it may be best to try and emulate dutch growers but they typically have a lot of space and the law on their side. If you have the space and you want to keep mothers then I say go for it! I disagree with your assumption that it's actually better. Different yes, better, I doubt it. Yes mothers can be kept indefinitely in theory but in practice it's not that simple. I've had mothers that I've kept for a while get very rootbound. You either have to pot up or prune roots. You can only get a pot that's so big so in time you have a problem on your hands. I've also had mothers autoflower for no good reason except that they are really old. Keeping mothers is usually best for a true Sea of Green operation. I have been doing this for over 15 years and have experimented with just about every method out there and I prefer the perpetual method without using dedicated mothers the best. Your purposes may be better suited keeping a mother plant around. That's what's so great about growing; there are so many methods and ways to do it that almost everybody can find a method that suits their needs. To each their own.I know people will clone a clone and have done so for years with no reported loss in vigor or potency. I've heard two analogies describing this practice; cloning gives you the same exact genetic makeup as the mother, AND I've also heard that cloning a clone is like making a copy of a copy. Eventually you'll start to see some degradation in quality (or some genetic drift based on environmental stress).
Now, cloning a clone is a better practice than cloning a plant who has gone through flower, then revegged, but as far as I know, the most ideal situation is to have a mother in a perpetual state of veg who can supply clones at all times. This is how the professionals do it in Amsterdam as I've heard of mothers living up to 20 years. If the 'pros' do it a certain way, then it's probably a good idea to emulate them.
Maybe I'll run an experiment over then next few years as I keep several moms around which would act as a control. I could make sure that at least one plant is always the product of a cloned-clone and i'll do this to compare the results to the control. Hopefully it doesn't take 20 generations.
So I just read the cloning section again in my Jorge Cervantes book hoping to find that xerox copy analogy again ( ...because I have read that somewhere). I did not find that passage, but he does talk about growers who have gone up to 20 generations of clones with no reported loss in potency. BUT, he does say: The important thing to consider when taking clones from a mother is to never let the mother bloom and then to revert back to vegetative growth. Clones taken from a rejuvenated female tend to be less potent and weaker.People often make the analogy of "copy of a copy" but it doesn't work this way with cloning. You aren't making a copy of anything. You are taking a piece of the actual plant. You aren't changing the DNA or any of the plants makeup. You aren't even copying it. People make that assumption because of xerox copies. Those do in fact lose quality after many copies of copies but cloning isn't the same thing at all. I find that clones actually become more potent and better after a couple of generations and up to a certain point. I agree it may be best to try and emulate dutch growers but they typically have a lot of space and the law on their side. If you have the space and you want to keep mothers then I say go for it! I disagree with your assumption that it's actually better. Different yes, better, I doubt it. Yes mothers can be kept indefinitely in theory but in practice it's not that simple. I've had mothers that I've kept for a while get very rootbound. You either have to pot up or prune roots. You can only get a pot that's so big so in time you have a problem on your hands. I've also had mothers autoflower for no good reason except that they are really old. Keeping mothers is usually best for a true Sea of Green operation. I have been doing this for over 15 years and have experimented with just about every method out there and I prefer the perpetual method without using dedicated mothers the best. Your purposes may be better suited keeping a mother plant around. That's what's so great about growing; there are so many methods and ways to do it that almost everybody can find a method that suits their needs. To each their own.