Re-Veg

[Norby]

Mutations can change genetics.  I believe our sweet apples were cuttings from apple trees that produced mostly bitter apples that were mostly used for making cider.  Branches that produced sweet apples were where different varieties of cuttings originated. Although the tree can be considered the mother and genetics can be different thru the plant whether it be clone from clone or a mother plant.  Although I don't know how likely it is and it'd be different w/ different strains.  Some are extremely stable.

 

When revegging make sure not to over water till the tops catch up to the over sized root system.  I usually water lightly with a light nutrient solution since most has been used up or flushed.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Norby

[t-pain]

you can take an almost completely bare stem and put it back into veg and it will grow again.

theres videos on youtube showing this.

heres one 

guy in video says 3 months to get back to a veg plant from that far into flower.

[peacefulfield]

3 months!!!! Ugg yeah I can have a monster from seed or clone in 3 months!!! Not sure reveg is for me...  If it was like 6 weeks top I would consider doing this again.

Edited October 14, 2013 by peacefulfield

[Norby]

Some are ready in 3-4.  It all depends on the strain and how far it has gone till harvest(Harvesting early to reveg is best) and how much is left on the plant(the more the better).  Easier plants tend to have less formed buds on the bottom and more vegetative looking growth(only a few hairs.

[trichcycler]

Clones don't lose any quality on third generation.  They never lose quality on any generation.  They are clones....an exact replica of the mother plant.  

 

Basic genetics.

This is not true, and is entirely dependent upon cloning habits. A genetic drift is most definitely happening to most clones home grows. These "drifts" mosty will not be noticed by a novice grower, or even a cropper, et. In a lab they are easily detected, and will most definitely affect each generation, albeit sometimes in a positive way.

Everyone has experienced the three toed clone, or the one that didn't root, or maybe the one with curled up leaves for weeks, or that one that shot straight up in the cup, unlike the others, all examples of clonal damage. Mildew/mold spores, present in all but the laboratory style labs with fungus protocol, is the biggest culprit. Mold/bacteriaa is on the surface of dirt, hydro rocks, in the air, on the ac vent, floor, and even on our plants(see general testing of allowable spores on cannabis in cali)

 

the goal is it never give a place to dig in, like an over nuted plant surface, damp dirty areas, dirty tools, etc.  If you ever saw a fungus gnat, there is fungus abound, and clonal damage is expected, unless performed in a sterile environment.

 

Agrobacterium is abound in nature, and is able to transport a genetic coding change directly into plants and their surfaces, seen here in a marijuana plant purposefully infected. A quick look in most forests will turn up trees with the big "crown gall" infection ring on their trunks.

[Celliach]

gall.jpg

This is not true, and is entirely dependent upon cloning habits. A genetic drift is most definitely happening to most clones home grows. These "drifts" mosty will not be noticed by a novice grower, or even a cropper, et. In a lab they are easily detected, and will most definitely affect each generation, albeit sometimes in a positive way.

Everyone has experienced the three toed clone, or the one that didn't root, or maybe the one with curled up leaves for weeks, or that one that shot straight up in the cup, unlike the others, all examples of clonal damage. Mildew/mold spores, present in all but the laboratory style labs with fungus protocol, is the biggest culprit. Mold/bacteriaagall.jpg is on the surface of dirt, hydro rocks, in the air, on the ac vent, floor, and even on our plants(see general testing of allowable spores on cannabis in cali)

 

the goal is it never give a place to dig in, like an over nuted plant surface, damp dirty areas, dirty tools, etc.  If you ever saw a fungus gnat, there is fungus abound, and clonal damage is expected, unless performed in a sterile environment.

 

Agrobacterium is abound in nature, and is able to transport a genetic coding change directly into plants and their surfaces, seen here in a marijuana plant purposefully infected. A quick look in most forests will turn up trees with the big "crown gall" infection ring on their trunks.

 

Can you please show me a scientific study that says genetics change when cloning?

[mibrains]

i agree with grassmatch...

 

the laws of evolution clearly show that the genetics of all living things are in a constant state of change..

 

on a molecular level the plant ingests the things they need from the environment they are living in.

 

all environments will have different molecules being up taken by the plants causing a change on a genetic level as the plant adjusts itself to its environment.

 

i have seen absolutely that cannabis strains change slightly after they are in my space and it only makes sense that they are acclimating.

 

that happens on a genetic level.

 

the manner in which a plant starts its journey of life is its "set of rules to live by" AKA strain

 

however those rules are merely guidelines..tools to tell the plant how to act..from the moment of creation (clones) each molecular exchange changes the plants cells as it evolves to grow the best it can in its current space with its current food...

 

future clones will grow and change with each cutting..

 

slight variations will present and not present themselves based on a gazillion variables...those changes fundamentally alter the DNA of the plant and the way the plant (or any living thing) will respond to its environment.

[trichcycler]

I could, but before I rack my brain and wear out google with copy pasta info lets explore it a bit.

Did you know that every time you are infected with a virus, and even bacteria, that it's not a question of if it did permanent changes, its a question of what changes will shorten your life, as a result of a "genetic drift", as visually seen in DNA as mutations, millions at a time, with every single cold, infection, etc. Chicken Pox, syphilis, cancer(mutated genetic changes most likely related to a virus, and some are even contagious today) ?

 

Most of us do not operate with sterile technique in a negative air, purified every minute, for  a quality equipped environment. When a non sterile scalpel is used to make a cutting, or the cutting is sitting in less than quality well water while you're collecting, or even worse, in the open air of a grow room, these fungi, bacteria, and yes even plant virus' exist by the millions in your room right now, waiting for a host to be just a little bit weaker to infect. Sometimes people live with infections for years, with little to no visible effects, and sometimes they live to spread the disease,  but not succumb to it.

This will get the goats of many, but it is true' Most of the people infected with MS also have a particular viral/bacterial culture within their putum. chicken or egg? not sure. many affected with Epstein barr, chronic fatigue, and those others that are hard to diagnose, also have Lyme's disorder first, and don't know it., an interesting fact . Many of these people never feel any different, until after a trauma, either mental or physical, another interesting fact.

 

Why plant 'clones' aren’t identical

 

Science

29 Jul 11

 

Clones of the plant 'thalecress' were analysed. Photo: Alberto Salguero

A new study of plants that are reproduced by ‘cloning’ has shown why cloned plants are not identical.

Scientists have known for some time that ‘clonal’ (regenerant) organisms are not always identical: their observable characteristics and traits can vary, and this variation can be passed on to the next generation. This is despite the fact that they are derived from genetically identical founder cells.

Now, a team from Oxford University, UK, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia, believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of regenerant plants carry relatively high frequencies of new DNA sequence mutations that were not present in the genome of the donor plant.

The team report their findings in this week’s Current Biology.

‘Anyone who has ever taken a cutting from a parent plant and then grown a new plant from this tiny piece is actually harnessing the ability such organisms have to regenerate themselves,’ said Professor Nicholas Harberd of Oxford University’s Department of Plant Sciences, lead author of the paper. ‘But sometimes regenerated plants are not identical, even if they come from the same parent. Our work reveals a cause of that visible variation.’

Nature has safely been employing what you might call a ‘cloning’ process in plants for millions of years

Professor Nicholas Harberd

Using DNA sequencing techniques that can decode the complete genome of an organism in one go (so-called ‘whole genome sequencing’) the researchers analysed ‘clones’ of the small flowering plant ‘thalecress’ (Arabidopsis). They found that observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants, mutations which are not contained in the genome of the parent plant.

‘Where these new mutations actually come from is still a mystery,’ said Professor Harberd. ‘They may arise during the regeneration process itself or during the cell divisions in the donor plant that gave rise to the root cells from which the regenerant plants are created. We are planning further research to find out which of these two processes is responsible for these mutations. What we can say is that Nature has safely been employing what you might call a ‘cloning’ process in plants for millions of years, and that there must be good evolutionary reasons why these mutations are introduced.’

The new results suggest that variation in clones of plants may have different underlying causes from that of variation in clones of animals – where it is believed that the effect of environmental factors on how animal genes are expressed is more important and no similar high frequencies of mutations have been observed.

Professor Harberd said: ‘Whilst our results highlight that cloned plants and animals are very different they may give us insights into how both bacterial and cancer cells replicate themselves, and how mutations arise during these processes which, ultimately, have an impact on human health.’ 

A report of the research, ‘Regenerant Arabidopsis Lineages Display a Distinct Genome-Wide Spectrum of Mutations Conferring Variant Phenotypes’, is published this week online in Current Biology.

The project is a collaboration between scientists at Oxford University’s Department of Plant Sciences, Oxford University’s Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Saudi Arabia. The research was supported by KAUST and the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

 

Can you please show me a scientific study that says genetics change when cloning?

[trichcycler]

can you quantify those statements with lab results?  me neither. I'm on hundreds of gens, and I do see genetic swings, and they are obvious. Some are exciting and the mutations can often become another keeper, or a replacement. We are the product of genetic diversity, genetic drift, and mutations, and its a good thing, some times.

I'm probably 30-40 generations out on a couple of strains.  No mom in over four years.  No difference in timing, yield, or quality. 

[Highlander]

can you quantify those statements with lab results?  me neither. I'm on hundreds of gens, and I do see genetic swings, and they are obvious. Some are exciting and the mutations can often become another keeper, or a replacement. We are the product of genetic diversity, genetic drift, and mutations, and its a good thing, some times.

 

No, I can't quantify the statements with lab results.  I think some people mistake adaptations for genetic mutations, and I don't know how one would determine which is the case. 

 

Consistency is the practical matter at hand as far as I'm concerned.  If patient A gets relief from Strain X generation after generation, then I don't need to think past that.  One needs to weigh the benefits and costs of having long-term mothers.  In my own experience, this is a waste of plant count, and also the older the plant, the more likely it is to have pests, etc. and the more likely that those pests will have survived a few generations of some kind of treatment and have adapted to that. 

 

When gardening under a controlled environment, there is a benefit to never having a plant older than about 12 weeks.

 

That is my conclusion, based on my own anecdotal experience.  Looks like yours is different.

[trichcycler]

Nope, I totally agree with your assessment, and I too keep no mother plants for the exact same reason. I don't get freaked out clones either, but I have seen them. And I know first hand the power of agrobacterium with the transfer of a disease causing organism and how it changes the dna. No matter to most, you're right, but just cuz we cant see it, doesn't mean its not there is all.

[Petyr]

If clones (actually cuttings, we are the only gardeners who refer to cuttings as such) changed over time, we wouldn't have the fruit we have today.  All the apples we eat are from plants that are decades old.  Almost every single banana in the world comes from 2 original plants "discovered" in the 1950s when the previous cultivar got wiped out by disease.  Strawberry plants are the same.

 

If this magical genetic drift happened, we wouldn't still be eating Golden Delicious apples or Cavendish bananas anymore, they would have magically changed into something else by now.

 

Not to mention there are plenty of cannabis clones that have been around for over 20 years now.  Some are 30-40 years old, but remember 1994 was now 20 years ago.  Cali has had their medical law for that long.    

[trichcycler]

sooo, god made the plants, and they are unable to have their dna altered through time, infection, injury, uv exposure. Most crops today and their seeds are from standardized tissue cultured varieties, purified and stable, and constantly refreshed, not open pollinated. Your analogy using 30-40 years is a far cry for an evolutionary dna change to be noticed maybe, dunno.  see above article Bananas are not cloned with scissors they are cultured. In the lab ALL of these commercial varieties are cultured for a standardized crop production scheme, not left up to genetic anomaloies to occur, and often engineered on the genetic level using----Agrobacterium as a carrier to INFECT the GENOME of said plant, permanently changing a segment of dna  for many reasons, maybe to express an auto pesticide producer, fuel, medicines, explosives, and even light.

 

"Using DNA sequencing techniques that can decode the complete genome of an organism in one go (so-called ‘whole genome sequencing’) the researchers analysed ‘clones’ of the small flowering plant ‘thalecress’ (Arabidopsis). They found that observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants, mutations which are not contained in the genome of the parent plant."

 

But what the hell does Oxford University know anyhow ! they stupid smarty pants probably a hundred years behind ! lol

Edited October 26, 2013 by grassmatch

[trichcycler]

without dna sequencing and results, perhaps these changes cannot be detected with the human senses? I'm just letting you all know that there are most definitely dna changes with every infection and that they can and do express them selves in ways maybe not understood, but they are never the same as their host once infected.

If clones (actually cuttings, we are the only gardeners who refer to cuttings as such) changed over time, we wouldn't have the fruit we have today.  All the apples we eat are from plants that are decades old.  Almost every single banana in the world comes from 2 original plants "discovered" in the 1950s when the previous cultivar got wiped out by disease.  Strawberry plants are the same.

 

If this magical genetic drift happened, we wouldn't still be eating Golden Delicious apples or Cavendish bananas anymore, they would have magically changed into something else by now.

 

Not to mention there are plenty of cannabis clones that have been around for over 20 years now.  Some are 30-40 years old, but remember 1994 was now 20 years ago.  Cali has had their medical law for that long.    

[trichcycler]

This is precisely how genetically modified food stuff is made, with a "dirty" bacterium, capable of penetrating the enzymes on dna, plant, animal, and human, and it can also carry with it all kinds of viral infections engineered to perform a ton of duties. This article explains it well. We have yet to see the changes our mass cloning will cause, as well as our mass male plant culling. some say these plants will learn, and cease to make males. I wonder if the price of feminized seeds will come down then?

 

GE organisms actually become part of the bacteria in our digestive tracts and reproduce continuously inside us. But the USDA now wants to to remove all controls from GE corn and cotton!

There are no human clinical trials of genetically engineered foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that genetic material inserted into GE soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. Even after we stop eating GE foods, we may still have the GE proteins produced continuously inside us.

As the Institute for Responsible Technology has noted, the genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant’s DNA. Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their behavior. Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged, and may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease.

The idea of having genetically engineered genes permanently living inside our guts has staggering implications:

• If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create antibiotic-resistant diseases.
• Bt toxins (Bacillus thuringiensis) inserted into GM food crops to kill pests are reaching the bloodstreams of 93% of women and 80% of unborn babies because of the consumption of meat, milk, and eggs from livestock fed GE corn. This could turn bacteria in our intestines into pesticide factories.
• Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.

And we’ve seen cross-species transfer of DNA happen before. A significant percentage of human DNA is actually viral DNA that became part of us over 40 million years ago. There is concern that virally transmitted DNA may cause mutations and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders. GE organisms may exacerbate this phenomenon.

Genetically engineered food genes transferring to our own genes could lead to problems like leaky gut syndrome:

• Our small intestine, which is responsible for about 70% of our immune system, behaves like a selective sieve: it lets only nutrients and well-digested fats, proteins, and starches enter the bloodstream and keeps out large molecules, microbes, and toxins.
• Leaky gut syndrome happens when the intestinal lining becomes inflamed, and the microvilli on the lining become damaged; this prevents the microvilli from absorbing nutrients and producing necessary enzymes and secretions for healthy digestion and absorption.
• In between cells are desmosomes, which keep the cells together, forming a strong structure preventing large molecules from passing through. When an area becomes inflamed, the structure is weakened, allowing larger molecules to escape. The makes the immune system produce antibodies and cytokines to fight off molecules because they are perceived as antigens.

Allergies have already skyrocketed in the US, and with the introduction of GE soy in the UK, soy related allergies rose to 50%. Yet federal agencies turn a blind eye to the dangers of genetic engineering.

In 1989 there was a tragic outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS), an incredibly painful disease. The outbreak was traced to consumption of l-tryptophan supplements produced by a Japanese company using genetically engineered bacteria. The bacteria are used to increase yields, but they increase impurities during the fermentation process—possibly leading to a level of contaminants that caused the EMS.

To this day, the government has refused to address the issue of purity standards for GE-manufactured products. Instead, federal agencies and biotech companies claimed that contaminants linked to the EMS tragedy were caused by changes in the company’s manufacturing process—despite the fact that the company was precisely following the purity standards enforced by government rules.

The EMS was rare and had a fast enough onset that the case histories of the patients could be linked to this supplement, and it was also acute enough that doctors took notice. There is a very clear causal link between EMS and these genetically engineered organisms.

The effects of other genetically modified products may not be as obvious so quickly, but can be even more devastating; as we have reported previously, GMOs are causing terrible genetic changes in mammal offspring. Scientists are seeing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility in hamsters, rats, and livestock fed GMO soy and corn, and some hamster pups even begin growing hair inside their mouths.

The late George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology in 1967 and Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University, was one of the first scientists to speak out about the potential dangers of genetic engineering:

Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth….Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors….For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.[1]

The USDA has released two Environmental Assessment reports, one for Monsanto’s corn genetically engineered to be drought-tolerant, and the other for Syngenta Biotechnology’s cotton genetically engineered to be pest-resistant. USDA believes the cotton is “unlikely to pose a plant pest risk”; for the corn, the agency is considering either keeping the corn under regulation, or assigning it nonregulated status (banning it altogether is off the table). The comment period for both EAs is open until July 11.

Please take action today! Tell the USDA that the corn and cotton must not be deregulated—that without strict controls, GE crops will encroach on non-GE crops, contaminating them, including organic crops—which will, of course, render them non-organic.

The GE corn is especially dangerous because it is for human consumption. As noted above, GE genes from foods can affect the bacteria from our digestive system, and can lead to allergies, disease and even sterility.

GMOs are causing terrible genetic changes in mammal offspring. Scientists are seeing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility in hamsters, rats, and livestock fed GMO soy and corn, and some hamster pups even begin growing hair inside their mouths.

 

I've led them to water, I cannot make them drink

peace out

[peacefulfield]

OK whatever you may believe about cloning clones of clones of clones. I personally do much better with seed... Seeds are how we still have original genetics NOT clones. Thus is why their are breeders growing just for seed & seed company's. I just did a batch of seed vs clones my last grow. I have always had better results with seed vs clones. My seed plants quadrupled in size in flower were my clones only barely tripled if that.. The clones did & always finish faster but the growth & yield was nothing compared to my seed plants. Don't get me wrong, I do like knowing that I have a 99% chance the clones will be a healthy female vs seed that has a 50-90% chance. Yet I don't have an opinion on regeneration...

Edited October 28, 2013 by peacefulfield