is it really CLONING???

[pftek]

i know we say it's cloning but is it really that? wouldn't cloning entail degradation after each clone??

 

[jvo]

This is a constantly debated subject. Some people say yes and some people say no. The quality of the plant is very unlikely to decrease. I wouldn't worry until your many generations down the road, from my personal experience I haven't seen a difference but I have only cloned a couple generations in.

 

[The*Mad*Hatter]

as long as you subject the clone to the same growing condition, you will see and exact replica of the mother plant it was takin from. so yes, genaticaly, it is a 100% replica of its mother.........again, givin the conitions are the same

 

[jawbrodt]

I'm a firm believer that they degrade every time they are cloned, even in the most perfect conditions. That includes any type of stress they endure as their growing, too. Like, topping, deficiencies, and even something as trivial as the switch to 12/12. These impacts may be practically immeasurable, but, I still believe they are there, forever imprinted in the plant's DNA. I've seen strains ruined within 1-2 grows, and I've heard of strains lasting 15+ years, and IMO, that's the results of stresses(or lack of) that they've endured throughout their lifetime. More stresses, no matter how minute = faster degredation.

I'm bullheaded too, so, it's going to take some really good information to convince me otherwise.lol

 

[crazyMIman]

ive seen it done. it doesnt seem it would be called clonning but its an exact copy of the plant you took it from. just like a clone of anything else

 

[marcoze]

Technically by all terms yes a "clone" from a marijuana plant, or any other plant for that matter is an exact genetic copy of the donor it came from. Therefore, by all technical and scientific terms it is indeed a Clone. The only factor that would differ it from another cutting (A.K.A clone) would be the conditions in wich it was grown.

There is no data to ever prove otherwise. Frankly, this world of pot is filled with many people who dont know shit about growing but try to. And their voices are the ones that are aplenty, this is the main reason some people say that its not a "Clone". Simply based on the fact that they cant grow, and their plant doesnt look like its predecessor.

*most* People jack their plants up more than they ever assist them in growing. The nutes and ferts industry thrives on this fact.

 

[mindphuk]

Main Entry: 1clone
Pronunciation: \ˈklōn\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek klōn twig, slip; akin to Greek klan to break — more at clast
Date: 1903
1 a : a group of genetically identical cells or organisms derived from a single cell or individual by some kind of asexual reproduction


Just curious by what you thought it would be if not clone? Rooting cuttings is the very definition of cloning in the biological sense. Did you think cloning meant something else? Who told you that cloning creates degradation?

 

[phyzix]

Genetically a clone is identical to it's parent (beside mutations). Because some strains have poor genetics, mutations are more likely. But under the same conditions, a clone will grow almost exactly like it's parent.

Pretty basic plant biology.

 

[marcoze]

Genetically a clone is identical to it's parent (beside mutations). Because some strains have poor genetics, mutations are more likely. But under the same conditions, a clone will grow almost exactly like it's parent.

Pretty basic plant biology.

Wait, what do you mean by mutations? a "Clone" will never have any "mutations" that differ from its parent. Whatsoever. never. Bottom line.

Any "Mutations" that are present in a clone independent from its predecessor are purely a result of its growing conditions.

If there is a "mutation" (Also known as a Phenotype wich is actually a "Mutation" that has been propagated by selective breeding), then that "mutation" is either present in its predecessor or a result of the "GROWER" - (using that term loosely because most people cant grow a fucking thing, or understand the basic laws of plant life and nature as a whole)

But, a clone will Never ever ever ever ever never ever ever, develop a "mutation" that was not present in the plant that it was cut from. (Unless the "Grower" thought he or she was some mad scientist *like most people* and fucked up the plant *THE LIKELY SCENARIO*) but then even, the mutation that YOU caused would NOT be present in any clones unless you FUCKED those ones up too *ALSO THE LIKELY SCENARIO*)

Any mutation is a result of something YOU did.


Pretty basic plant biology.

*think of it this way, if what you said was true..................then what would be the point in a-sexual propagation of any plant of any type. ever? it would be a waste of time and effort and it would not be practiced.*

 

[dam612]

yea mutations can arise from from stress that they get subjected too, but genetically speaking cutting are clones. Its more of a play off asexual reproduction/budding bc once the totipotent cell are ruptured and subjected to some hormones they differentiate into the missing tissue and regain the properties of the plant, while creating a copy.
4years of college bio haha

 

[marcoze]

yea mutations can arise from from stress that they get subjected too, but genetically speaking cutting are clones. Its more of a play off asexual reproduction/budding bc once the totipotent cell are ruptured and subjected to some hormones they differentiate into the missing tissue and regain the properties of the plant, while creating a copy.
4years of college bio haha

Thank you.

 

[phyzix]

Wait, what do you mean by mutations? a "Clone" will never have any "mutations" that differ from its parent. Whatsoever. never. Bottom line.

Any "Mutations" that are present in a clone independent from its predecessor are purely a result of its growing conditions.

If there is a "mutation" (Also known as a Phenotype wich is actually a "Mutation" that has been propagated by selective breeding), then that "mutation" is either present in its predecessor or a result of the "GROWER" - (using that term loosely because most people cant grow a fucking thing, or understand the basic laws of plant life and nature as a whole)

But, a clone will Never ever ever ever ever never ever ever, develop a "mutation" that was not present in the plant that it was cut from. (Unless the "Grower" thought he or she was some mad scientist *like most people* and fucked up the plant *THE LIKELY SCENARIO*) but then even, the mutation that YOU caused would NOT be present in any clones unless you FUCKED those ones up too *ALSO THE LIKELY SCENARIO*)

Any mutation is a result of something YOU did.


Pretty basic plant biology.

*think of it this way, if what you said was true..................then what would be the point in a-sexual propagation of any plant of any type. ever? it would be a waste of time and effort and it would not be practiced.*

Here is a bit of information from University of California, Berkeley and Towson University:

"Asexual reproduction can be advantageous and/or disadvatageous. One positive aspect is that it can create individuals rapidly and in large quantities. Secondly, bypassing the sexual process can help a plant in times of dryness since motile sperm require water to fertilize the egg. Another advantage lies in the fact that plants with the desired characteristics can be cloned for economic reasons (agriculture). However, if something goes wrong, such as as the occurance of a fatal mutation, the whole society of clones can be terminated. For this reason, farmers are careful in determining how to propagate their vegetation. In conclusion, the asexual process of reproduction is an important one to plants."

Source: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss6/asexual.html

"The concept of Muller's Ratchet is really quite simple. Asexual lineages will accumulate mutations independently of each other. Some lineages will have few, if any, mutations, while others will carry a greater number of deleterious mutants. Given that mutation is a pervasive phenomenon, the relative frequency of lineages with no mutations will decrease over time. Furthermore, in a finite population there is a high probability that the mutant-free class will be lost. Given that a succession of "backward" mutations is unlikely, the frequency of deleterious mutations within and among lineages will increase. As a result, using the analogy of a ratchet (a mechanical device that only allows forward movement), the population of asexual lineages will carry a steadily increasing load of deleterious mutations."

Source: http://pages.towson.edu/scully/sex.html

 

[laceygirl]

I've helped look after a mother plant that's ten years old... The cuttings just keep coming...

 

[phyzix]

I've helped look after a mother plant that's ten years old... The cuttings just keep coming...

Which is the advantage to keeping a healthy mother, no worries about potential variations over multiple generations. The clones will almost always exhibit identical characteristics to the mommy.