Clones taken from previous plants ad infinitum

[Andy]

Hi all,

In the past, I used to take clones from my plants just before the flip to flower (12/12), and grow those up as temporary mothers for the next crop. Then, when needed, I’d take clones from those temporary mothers for the next cycle and trash the mums. The cycle would continue so I’d never have to keep permanent mothers, which was convenient.

I’ve heard, though, that doing so is problematic as doing so dilutes some of the qualities of the plant over time - say you’d lose potency, taste etc. over time.

Is that correct? Is it much more advisable to keep a permanent F2 mother?

Cheers.

 

[Munch517]

I've listened to a lot of people on this, both growers and academics, and there doesn't seem to be any real consensus on what they call "clonal degradation". There does seem to be a consensus that the whole "genetic drift" thing is bunk, at least in that the genetics of the plant don't change (save for mutations, which are sudden and random). When people say cloning infinitely causes problems with the plants keep in mind that every Cavendish banana plant grown around the world for well over a hundred years are all clones (don't mind the issues that come with monoculture, that's a whole other story).

This is a decent overview:

Does cloning ruin cannabis strains over time?

Science says that clones are exact copies of their mother—so why do some strains degrade after years of cloning? Read on to find out why.

www.leafly.com

I would not keep a permanent mother, all advice points to clones taken from younger, vigorous mothers doing better. Besides, keeping permanent mothers will almost certainly cause you pest problems that will make you regret the practice.

 

[PipeCarver]

Hi all,

In the past, I used to take clones from my plants just before the flip to flower (12/12), and grow those up as temporary mothers for the next crop. Then, when needed, I’d take clones from those temporary mothers for the next cycle and trash the mums. The cycle would continue so I’d never have to keep permanent mothers, which was convenient.

I’ve heard, though, that doing so is problematic as doing so dilutes some of the qualities of the plant over time - say you’d lose potency, taste etc. over time.

Is that correct? Is it much more advisable to keep a permanent F2 mother?

Cheers.

Why would you trash the mother plants? Turn them and grow monsters.

 

[Andy]

I've listened to a lot of people on this, both growers and academics, and there doesn't seem to be any real consensus on what they call "clonal degradation". There does seem to be a consensus that the whole "genetic drift" thing is bunk, at least in that the genetics of the plant don't change (save for mutations, which are sudden and random). When people say cloning infinitely causes problems with the plants keep in mind that every Cavendish banana plant grown around the world for well over a hundred years are all clones (don't mind the issues that come with monoculture, that's a whole other story).

This is a decent overview:

Does cloning ruin cannabis strains over time?

Science says that clones are exact copies of their mother—so why do some strains degrade after years of cloning? Read on to find out why.

www.leafly.com

I would not keep a permanent mother, all advice points to clones taken from younger, vigorous mothers doing better. Besides, keeping permanent mothers will almost certainly cause you pest problems that will make you regret the practice.

Amazing advice, thanks for taking the time.