Regulator Dave
Member
So I was having a debate with an experienced grower about clone degradation. I'll tell you first about the debate we were having so anybody can weigh in.
Second I will tell you about the idea I had for a side by side experiment involving harvesting "excellent" Clones and starting an excellent clone line. Next to it I will also have a "poor" clone line. If enough people are interested in it and my hypothesis still holds enough water that it is worth investigating after everybody picks it apart, than I will conduct the experiment in my 5 kW garden.
The debate: Regulator Dave (RD) vs. The dude
The dude called first generation clones "F1" , 2nd generation "F2" and third "F3" and so on. He was very adamant about the idea that clone stalk is only for commercial growers and that all clones grow shitty herb.
Dude says: " I would never grow with anything that did not come from the generation of clones from the mother grown from seed "
So his "F1 clones" were the only viable clone. He then gave a bunch of examples of growers that had declining quality with clones. He was solid in his position and believed without a doubt that anything past an "F2" is a shit clone. His method of propagation is to plant a seed, veg the mom and then take clones from the mom and grow those to harvest.
I told him I just could not agree that growing from seed would overall be a better strategy to grow the Sticky Icky Dank. I told him that the laws of probability and statistics were against him with that strategy, and that it was foolish to not grow proven clone only winners.
We held onto the debate for about 20 minutes after we put the Power Kush blunt out. Both sticking to our positions. We both did agree that it is known that seeds have around 25- 30% more growth vigor than their clone counterpart. I claimed though that aside from the 25 % loss, the idea that an "F3" clone and beyond is a shit clone just does not seem true to me. And further that after the initial shift from seeded plant to cloned plant there is no further degradation.
After I made it home the conversation continued to rattle around in my brain. Something to keep in mind is that despite the fact that his idea went against the "truths" I have come to know, He spoke with much experience and was quite knowledgeable in other cannatopics. I wanted to give his ideas a fair subjective chance to change my own.
The conclusion I came too was last night when we got home led me to wonder if we were both ....right???
I just met the guy and may not have a chance to talk to him again. But I would like to ask him some questions. Feel free to answer them if you'd like. I will be grinning if there are people that take both sides of this debate.
Would he consider this to NOT be a generative way to take clones from a seed grown mother If: You grow the mother out continually take clones from it while keeping it in veg. say even for a long time, maybe even years, always growing to harvest his "F1" clones. This method would not go against his theory that a clone is only good that is from the SAME generation. The mother plant would always be a first generation from seed plant and the clones would always be of the same generation i.e "F1" his "good" clones.
Lets assume that he would say yes, actually I think he would have to say yes because it does not break any rules of his theory.
So with that in mind I would ask him this, do you think that it is the process of cloning that causes the degeneration? Or do you think it is the age of the plant that causes the degeneration. Or is there another explanation I do not see yet.
Challenging his theory:
A clone from a mother from seed is the same plant and is the same age as the mother. If you grew the clone and the mom side by side they would still be the same generation. If you took a clone from that clone and grew it next to both the mother from seed and the first clone from the mother they would all be the same age and so on and so on. No matter how many clones from clones from clones you took originating from the seed mother they would always still be the same age as the mother that they were growing next to.
Now remove the mother from the scenario, after you take the first clone, say the mom goes into flower, the clone is still the same age as the mom would have been. If you take a clone from a clone from a clone ect. The resulting clone is still and into eternity the same age as the mother would have been. So the age thing does not really hold water. Right?
So the only way cloning could cause degeneration is if it was due to the process of cloning. The only way I can see that happening is by taking crappy clones that barely live and grow really slow for the rest of their life and possibly for the rest of the life of all the clones that come from it.
If you take an excellent clone and the plant never gets stunted, the plant does not lose any chlorophyll from the leaves and looks exactly like it did when it was cut (which with our method of rooting clones they often don't change at all) the growth should be the same and should continue being the same if the only clones kept were excellent clones that never got stressed. This is applied vise versa for crappy clones taken from crappy clones.
All this amounts to is that his theory states: If you take crappy clones you get crappy plants, right?
Finally to the more interesting part. The side by side experiment.
Experiment design
I will take one of my seedlings (blue satellite 2.2), take both good clones and bad clones, we'll take one of the really crappy slow growers and we'll take one of the excellent clones and we will veg them until we can take clones from them.
Then we will grow out and flower the clone from the excellent clone and the clone from the crappy clone and compare them to see if there has been any degeneration. We could even run this experiment longer, always taking crappy clones from the crappy clones............. and always take excellent clones from excellent clones from excellent clones............I would be willing to run it for a long time as long as the quality of the B.S 2.2 is acceptable.
We could observe and see how many generations it takes for degeneration to occur, and we would also see the difference between a good clone line and a bad clone line.
My hypothesis is that the good clone line will always result in better plants & end result than the bad clone line assuming all conditions between the two stay constant we would give "good" line and the "bad" line everything the exact same.
Crappy clones make crappy plants.. So if my hypothesis is right the Dude and I are both right?
If my hypothesis is correct would it mean that if at anytime the clone line you have, has had one bad clone in the hierarchy the whole downstream clone line is degraded?
So I hope this thread sparks some interest and I hope the experiment is worth doing because it seems like it would be fun.
Lastly I want to say that I have a very thorough knowledge in experimental design and statistics. So the experiment would be done well.
Second I will tell you about the idea I had for a side by side experiment involving harvesting "excellent" Clones and starting an excellent clone line. Next to it I will also have a "poor" clone line. If enough people are interested in it and my hypothesis still holds enough water that it is worth investigating after everybody picks it apart, than I will conduct the experiment in my 5 kW garden.
The debate: Regulator Dave (RD) vs. The dude
The dude called first generation clones "F1" , 2nd generation "F2" and third "F3" and so on. He was very adamant about the idea that clone stalk is only for commercial growers and that all clones grow shitty herb.
Dude says: " I would never grow with anything that did not come from the generation of clones from the mother grown from seed "
So his "F1 clones" were the only viable clone. He then gave a bunch of examples of growers that had declining quality with clones. He was solid in his position and believed without a doubt that anything past an "F2" is a shit clone. His method of propagation is to plant a seed, veg the mom and then take clones from the mom and grow those to harvest.
I told him I just could not agree that growing from seed would overall be a better strategy to grow the Sticky Icky Dank. I told him that the laws of probability and statistics were against him with that strategy, and that it was foolish to not grow proven clone only winners.
We held onto the debate for about 20 minutes after we put the Power Kush blunt out. Both sticking to our positions. We both did agree that it is known that seeds have around 25- 30% more growth vigor than their clone counterpart. I claimed though that aside from the 25 % loss, the idea that an "F3" clone and beyond is a shit clone just does not seem true to me. And further that after the initial shift from seeded plant to cloned plant there is no further degradation.
After I made it home the conversation continued to rattle around in my brain. Something to keep in mind is that despite the fact that his idea went against the "truths" I have come to know, He spoke with much experience and was quite knowledgeable in other cannatopics. I wanted to give his ideas a fair subjective chance to change my own.
The conclusion I came too was last night when we got home led me to wonder if we were both ....right???
I just met the guy and may not have a chance to talk to him again. But I would like to ask him some questions. Feel free to answer them if you'd like. I will be grinning if there are people that take both sides of this debate.
Would he consider this to NOT be a generative way to take clones from a seed grown mother If: You grow the mother out continually take clones from it while keeping it in veg. say even for a long time, maybe even years, always growing to harvest his "F1" clones. This method would not go against his theory that a clone is only good that is from the SAME generation. The mother plant would always be a first generation from seed plant and the clones would always be of the same generation i.e "F1" his "good" clones.
Lets assume that he would say yes, actually I think he would have to say yes because it does not break any rules of his theory.
So with that in mind I would ask him this, do you think that it is the process of cloning that causes the degeneration? Or do you think it is the age of the plant that causes the degeneration. Or is there another explanation I do not see yet.
Challenging his theory:
A clone from a mother from seed is the same plant and is the same age as the mother. If you grew the clone and the mom side by side they would still be the same generation. If you took a clone from that clone and grew it next to both the mother from seed and the first clone from the mother they would all be the same age and so on and so on. No matter how many clones from clones from clones you took originating from the seed mother they would always still be the same age as the mother that they were growing next to.
Now remove the mother from the scenario, after you take the first clone, say the mom goes into flower, the clone is still the same age as the mom would have been. If you take a clone from a clone from a clone ect. The resulting clone is still and into eternity the same age as the mother would have been. So the age thing does not really hold water. Right?
So the only way cloning could cause degeneration is if it was due to the process of cloning. The only way I can see that happening is by taking crappy clones that barely live and grow really slow for the rest of their life and possibly for the rest of the life of all the clones that come from it.
If you take an excellent clone and the plant never gets stunted, the plant does not lose any chlorophyll from the leaves and looks exactly like it did when it was cut (which with our method of rooting clones they often don't change at all) the growth should be the same and should continue being the same if the only clones kept were excellent clones that never got stressed. This is applied vise versa for crappy clones taken from crappy clones.
All this amounts to is that his theory states: If you take crappy clones you get crappy plants, right?
Finally to the more interesting part. The side by side experiment.
Experiment design
I will take one of my seedlings (blue satellite 2.2), take both good clones and bad clones, we'll take one of the really crappy slow growers and we'll take one of the excellent clones and we will veg them until we can take clones from them.
Then we will grow out and flower the clone from the excellent clone and the clone from the crappy clone and compare them to see if there has been any degeneration. We could even run this experiment longer, always taking crappy clones from the crappy clones............. and always take excellent clones from excellent clones from excellent clones............I would be willing to run it for a long time as long as the quality of the B.S 2.2 is acceptable.
We could observe and see how many generations it takes for degeneration to occur, and we would also see the difference between a good clone line and a bad clone line.
My hypothesis is that the good clone line will always result in better plants & end result than the bad clone line assuming all conditions between the two stay constant we would give "good" line and the "bad" line everything the exact same.
Crappy clones make crappy plants.. So if my hypothesis is right the Dude and I are both right?
If my hypothesis is correct would it mean that if at anytime the clone line you have, has had one bad clone in the hierarchy the whole downstream clone line is degraded?
So I hope this thread sparks some interest and I hope the experiment is worth doing because it seems like it would be fun.
Lastly I want to say that I have a very thorough knowledge in experimental design and statistics. So the experiment would be done well.
I say the test is over the results are in
