# What's up with monster cropping / flowering clones etc??



## EverythingsHazy (Mar 25, 2013)

Was told to post this here instead of general. 


> OT is here if mods wanna delete: https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/636954-whats-up-cloning-flowering-plants.html



Thanks in advance for helping out and reading all these questions. 


Is it true that you can take a clone from a flowering plant and it will branch like mad without toppin or training if you put it back into veg?

Also, can you clone a flowering plant, put the clone on 18/6 till it gets big and flower it and then take another "monster crop" clone from it over and over or will it lose potency. I don't believe clones from clones change at all normally but does flowering do anything special to the plants? Also would tissue culturing a piece if a flowering plant lose the potency. I don't think it should. It should just go to veg again.

Can you keep a clone in veg forever if you trim it. 
When you take a clone of a flowering plant and cut off all the buds it should reveg and be normal again no?

Another question. Why not cut off all buds when you reveg a big plant?



And last question: are preflowers considered flowering? Or can I put a clone that is showing female preflowers in veg till it gets a couple feet and bushy and then clone it and keep those in veg until I clone those.


----------



## DrKingGreen (Mar 25, 2013)

EverythingsHazy said:


> Is it true that you can take a clone from a flowering plant and it will branch like mad without toppin or training if you put it back into veg?
> clone from it over and over or will it lose potency.
> Can you keep a clone in veg forever if you trim it.
> When you take a clone of a flowering plant and cut off all the buds it should reveg and be normal again no?
> ...


It should grow much like the mother in terms of branching. It's genetics.
I'm pretty sure clones losing potency has been debunked. I see lots of people cloning clones over and over.
You can't keep a cannabis plant in veg forever. Eventually it will become unhealthy. I've seen some people with mothers 5 or so years, but not much longer.
Plants can be reveged, yes.
From what I've read, you will end up with a very bushy part of the plant if you leave the budsites.
Yes, you can reveg and then clone.


----------



## Figong (Mar 25, 2013)

DrKingGreen said:


> It should grow much like the mother in terms of branching. It's genetics.
> I'm pretty sure clones losing potency has been debunked. I see lots of people cloning clones over and over.
> You can't keep a cannabis plant in veg forever. Eventually it will become unhealthy. I've seen some people with mothers 5 or so years, but not much longer.
> Plants can be reveged, yes.
> ...


Yes on all counts, monster cropping is great for tight node spacing that grows it out as a bush.. the downside is that it'll take longer to complete (obviously) given the pattern:

clone -> veg -> flower -> re-veg -> re-flower ->cut/dry/cure


----------



## Opm (Mar 26, 2013)

I don't get the whole theory that cloning clones reduces potency.
Why does it only effect the potency instead of leaf size,branching or some other characteristic. It's always a reduced potency in the argument.

I recently read a study that showed a ever so slight variation in alleles (genetic patterns) in clones.The plant has to have undergone natural cloning in the wild or it wouldn't have the genetic instructions to make it possible. This brings up the question why. It is probably a back up mechanism to introduce a bit of diversity to ensure evolution continues even without sexual propagation.

Then you have to ask yourself why would the plant evolve and reduce it's potency. Whatever function these chemicals serve to the plant, most speculate UV protection, would no longer be needed. This would still take thousands of years to happen and probably much longer under asexual propagation considering the amount of genetic material that changes.


----------



## mrCRC420 (Mar 26, 2013)

My best guess to the potency-loss question is this: A seed has energy stored within it, enough to root and grow a seedling a seedling will grow in coco), then soil and nutes take over. Now with clones, at that point, the energy comes from soil/nutes and rooting creates a lot of stress on clones as branches don't normally need to root (we all know the stem will root up to the top soil). So perhaps not possessing the initial stored energy causes a decrease in energy (not genetics) and this the plant cannot operate as strong, chemically, to produce resin. What do you think of that!


----------



## EverythingsHazy (Mar 26, 2013)

mrCRC420 said:


> My best guess to the potency-loss question is this: A seed has energy stored within it, enough to root and grow a seedling a seedling will grow in coco), then soil and nutes take over. Now with clones, at that point, the energy comes from soil/nutes and rooting creates a lot of stress on clones as branches don't normally need to root (we all know the stem will root up to the top soil). So perhaps not possessing the initial stored energy causes a decrease in energy (not genetics) and this the plant cannot operate as strong, chemically, to produce resin. What do you think of that!


Lol. I think it would just slow the plant down for a couple days or weeks until it had strong roots and then continue like nothing happened. I clone many other plants and there is never a problem from doing so. If anything you can weed out any ones that appear weaker due to mutations but that is still a long shot and you have the same possibility of getting a positive mutation as a negative one.


----------



## Figong (Mar 26, 2013)

EverythingsHazy said:


> Lol. I think it would just slow the plant down for a couple days or weeks until it had strong roots and then continue like nothing happened. I clone many other plants and there is never a problem from doing so. If anything you can weed out any ones that appear weaker due to mutations but that is still a long shot and you have the same possibility of getting a positive mutation as a negative one.


Agreed on this, mutations are possible.. although probability is -very- low.... genetic drift that's natural.. I'd argue for hours until someone could prove that the genetic equilibrium law was wrong, or heavily flawed. That said, I've considered irradiating seeds just to see if it'd produce a new pheno that'd be liked, purely for the sake of doing it and seeing what results.


----------



## EverythingsHazy (Mar 26, 2013)

Figong said:


> Agreed on this, mutations are possible.. although probability is -very- low.... genetic drift that's natural.. I'd argue for hours until someone could prove that the genetic equilibrium law was wrong, or heavily flawed. That said, I've considered irradiating seeds just to see if it'd produce a new pheno that'd be liked, purely for the sake of doing it and seeing what results.


Would be very cool to try irradiating seeds. Somewhat dangerous but awesome lol. If you do keep me in the loop!


----------



## Figong (Mar 26, 2013)

EverythingsHazy said:


> Would be very cool to try irradiating seeds. Somewhat dangerous but awesome lol. If you do keep me in the loop!


If I do, will definitely need to find someone with the laser that I'd want to use for the irradiation so we don't end up with a radiological disaster.


----------



## PurpleBuz (Mar 26, 2013)

EverythingsHazy said:


> Would be very cool to try irradiating seeds. Somewhat dangerous but awesome lol. If you do keep me in the loop!


irradiating seeds has a 99.999 % chance of producing a useless mutation. The chance of producing a single inheritable trait thats usefull is extremely low.
Nonetheless if you irradiate a 1000 seeds and grow and screen those seeds you might get something worthwhile....

actually , qualifier I do not know what the actual percentages are, but they are extremely low...


----------



## EverythingsHazy (Mar 26, 2013)

PurpleBuz said:


> irradiating seeds has a 99.999 % chance of producing a useless mutation. The chance of producing a single inheritable trait thats usefull is extremely low.
> Nonetheless if you irradiate a 1000 seeds and grow and screen those seeds you might get something worthwhile....
> 
> actually , qualifier I do not know what the actual percentages are, but they are extremely low...


IK so imagine how little chance there is of producing a mutation let alone a negative or even noticeable one from cloning a plant lmaoo


----------



## Figong (Mar 26, 2013)

PurpleBuz said:


> irradiating seeds has a 99.999 % chance of producing a useless mutation. The chance of producing a single inheritable trait thats usefull is extremely low.
> Nonetheless if you irradiate a 1000 seeds and grow and screen those seeds you might get something worthwhile....
> 
> actually , qualifier I do not know what the actual percentages are, but they are extremely low...


Would say you could find something in 1 out of 200, but yes... most will not want to buy 200 seeds (assuming they don't have spare stock) then handle gamma to irradiate with. At that, you'd then have to have more seeds, as mrad levels would make the difference in the results too.. so you'd have to do a control set, then 50, 150, 250, 350, 450. I really wouldn't go higher than 450 without an industrial lab, proper shielding, and the gear as I value my life.


----------



## Figong (Mar 26, 2013)

EverythingsHazy said:


> IK so imagine how little chance there is of producing a mutation let alone a negative or even noticeable one from cloning a plant lmaoo


With the proper amount, you're guaranteed a genotype change, which would mean that the DNA got damaged/altered.. and would result in an -altered- phenotype.. good or bad, that's the flip of a coin and it's a big experiment/test.


----------



## EverythingsHazy (Mar 26, 2013)

I dont see how a CLONE would change. it would have the same chance of mutating as if the original plant spontaneously mutated without being a clone itself. THe plant isnt being recreated from scratch as a clone it is litterally just a stem growing roots and then getting bigger like nothing happened.


----------



## Figong (Mar 26, 2013)

EverythingsHazy said:


> I dont see how a CLONE would change. it would have the same chance of mutating as if the original plant spontaneously mutated without being a clone itself. THe plant isnt being recreated from scratch as a clone it is litterally just a stem growing roots and then getting bigger like nothing happened.


Clone, nope.. clone would have to be a genetic defect that was condition induced.. always existed, but never presented itself...


----------



## PurpleBuz (Mar 26, 2013)

EverythingsHazy said:


> I dont see how a CLONE would change. it would have the same chance of mutating as if the original plant spontaneously mutated without being a clone itself. THe plant isnt being recreated from scratch as a clone it is litterally just a stem growing roots and then getting bigger like nothing happened.


Exactly, a growing apical tip on a clone or on a mother plant has just as much chance as mutating. Only exception I can think of is if the method of cloning increases the chance of mutation because of physical damage from the cuts, rooting hormones, or general stress.


----------



## EverythingsHazy (Mar 26, 2013)

Figong said:


> Clone, nope.. clone would have to be a genetic defect that was condition induced.. always existed, but never presented itself...


Exactly so I dont see why people worry. If you were providing a condition that would cause the gene to express itself the mother would have shown it as well. As would all of the previous clones.


----------



## Figong (Mar 26, 2013)

PurpleBuz said:


> Exactly, a growing apical tip on a clone or on a mother plant has just as much chance as mutating. Only exception I can think of is if the method of cloning increases the chance of mutation because of physical damage from the cuts, rooting hormones, or general stress.


Agreed on this.


----------



## EverythingsHazy (Mar 26, 2013)

PurpleBuz said:


> Exactly, a growing apical tip on a clone or on a mother plant has just as much chance as mutating. Only exception I can think of is if the method of cloning increases the chance of mutation because of physical damage from the cuts, rooting hormones, or general stress.


Yup! That's my reasoning. I'm new to cannabis but not to plants. And not to cloning either, and i would like to think cannabis isnt much different than any other plant. IMO even stress and hormone imbalance would level out if given the same conditions as the plant the clone came from. Might take a while and show some deformed growth but the genes shouldnt change.


----------



## PurpleBuz (Mar 26, 2013)

Figong said:


> With the proper amount, you're guaranteed a genotype change, which would mean that the DNA got damaged/altered.. and would result in an -altered- phenotype.. good or bad, that's the flip of a coin and it's a big experiment/test.


Research with randomnly induced mutations that the majority of mutations are harmfull to the survival of the new plant. It really is that one in a million mutation that is interesting or benneficial. Flip of a coin is 50/50.


----------



## Figong (Mar 26, 2013)

PurpleBuz said:


> Research with randomnly induced mutations that the majority of mutations are harmfull to the survival of the new plant. It really is that one in a million mutation that is interesting or benneficial. Flip of a coin is 50/50.


Also agreed, wouldn't do it until I had plenty of time and $ to waste, figuratively.


----------



## d3dm4n (May 30, 2013)

mrCRC420 said:


> My best guess to the potency-loss question is this: A seed has energy stored within it, enough to root and grow a seedling a seedling will grow in coco), then soil and nutes take over. Now with clones, at that point, the energy comes from soil/nutes and rooting creates a lot of stress on clones as branches don't normally need to root (we all know the stem will root up to the top soil). So perhaps not possessing the initial stored energy causes a decrease in energy (not genetics) and this the plant cannot operate as strong, chemically, to produce resin. What do you think of that!


I think you could be right ... nice thought


----------



## EverythingsHazy (May 30, 2013)

Sounds like a nice theory, but that doesn't change the genetics of the plant and a seed can only hold a minute amount of energy. Same with the cotyledons. Once that is done the plant gets its energy from the environment so putting a clone in a good environment should be the same as growing from a seed after the rooting takes place. The point of the energy in the seed is to get the plant started until there are roots. When you take a cutting, the plant has chlorophyll to do that job for it as well as stores nutrients.


----------



## BEGINNERGROWER7 (Jun 12, 2013)

I dont know too much about radiation,
I dont know if it would help or be enough radiation to do anything, but i over heard some "geeks" talking a few years back about placing a popcorn kernel in between 3 or 4 iphones and, texting all of the phones at the same time, the radiation of the phones would cause the popcorn kernel to pop!
Maybe if you put your seed in between some i phones and texted them like 100 times, it would create enough radiation to maybe alter genetics?


----------



## doctormj (Jul 9, 2013)

EverythingsHazy said:


> Is it true that you can take a clone from a flowering plant and it will branch like mad without toppin or training if you put it back into veg?


This is true


----------



## growingforfun (Jul 9, 2013)

BEGINNERGROWER7 said:


> I dont know too much about radiation,
> I dont know if it would help or be enough radiation to do anything, but i over heard some "geeks" talking a few years back about placing a popcorn kernel in between 3 or 4 iphones and, texting all of the phones at the same time, the radiation of the phones would cause the popcorn kernel to pop!
> Maybe if you put your seed in between some i phones and texted them like 100 times, it would create enough radiation to maybe alter genetics?


Holy fuck...


----------

