What's new
By:
GrowWeedEasy.com
You're browsing as a guest. Sign up to join the conversation, share your grows, and get help from thousands of fellow growers — it's free and takes less than a minute.

Seed vs. Clone

kingfish

kingfish

New member
Over the years I have been growing from seeds and from clone, and I have come to the conclusion that the clones are more potent then from seeds. Does anyone else feel the same? Or am I full of it?
 
Hey kingfish,

Good question. Presently, I would say I like seed's much better. How can I make this short and sweet? With seeds I think you're always offered fresh new genetics. The strain quality is unsurpassed, provided you buy from a reputable seedbank. I have only ever had one problem with seeds. I had ordered 3 different strains, same breeder, from the seedbank I usually get my bean's from. Two were Indica dominant and one was a Sativa dominant. I cultivated the one I thought was an Indica dominant but I soon discovered in regards to the leaf shape that this was the Haze I had purchased. The bags were labled wrong. Other than that, they're relatively cheap, thousands to choose from, I've personally found even some of the cheaper seed's made beautiful, high yielding plants. I have no use for a mother plant, only one at a time for me. Also, I cultivate a lot of Auto's, so always by seed. They arrive in the mail, and there's no bugs attached. I've got a lot of houseplants, an infestation would be a disaster. Starting from seed let's you achieve a very uniform plant, structurally and genetically, trait's that Breeder's stride for.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Everyone kinda does their own thing. To each their own. So it's definitely seed's for me.

Peace,

DirtyNerd
 
Thanks for the comeback DN. I like you like to start with quality seeds from a seedbank. However sometimes I like to take clones from my own plant. I don't take clones from another grower. If I do, I always end up with bugs. The answer I was looking for was, do you think the potency was higher from clones then from seeds. I always felt that the potency was just a little higher from a clone. Maybe is just me. What do you think?

Kingfish
 
To answer your question directly, no, I don't think clones produce more potent flowers. I can't figure out any reason how or why a clone would produce more potent medicine unless environmental factors were changed with the clone vs the mother.

Do you have a theory behind this or is this just from observation?
 
kingfish Seeds are a bundle of genetic material and clones are literally a copy of the grown up version that same material. One could say that clones are only as good as the seeds they originally came from.

Even in the article mentioned above, when Jorge Cervantes talks about taking clones of clones etc., he's talks about "no apparent breakdown in the clone’s potency or vigor" as opposed to gaining potency or vigor. Plus, if clones were inherently more potent than seeds, you would have a bunch of seed growers taking clones of their seedlings and using those to harvest instead! :D
 
Hi Sirius:

Ah yes, but Jorge also states in this article about phenotype variation due to environment and this may also extend to potency differences. The research is really out there but these commercial cannabis growers like to keep secrets so we are not likely to see it.

At the recent trade show I attended I was eavesdropping (not very scientific) on a couple of underground Commercial growers (based on the 5 gallon containers of nutes they were buying and the attention they were getting from the company reps.) anyhow they were talking about thinning out clones based on phenotype? So there must be some reasons some clones just don't cut the muster.
 
All I can say is years ago when I grew I had northern lights...I had mother after mother for five years...potency in my opinion and my peers, never lessened.it was always and I mean always the best pot anyone had.my growing group I was in had great strains but none comparable.

I know some will say...well it's northern lights...but come on...five years and no noticeable difference...so I tend to believe if you have good genetics to start with either seed or clone than you will always have good genetics.

I have always done clones...my next grow will be from seeds....I want to try some main lining .....I believe seeds will be better for that.

To each their own I believe in this case.:cool:​​​​​​

.......I really love this forum....
 
In my opinion I think clones are a better way to start since it will be quicker compared to seedlings, only problems is that it may carry pests and diseases from the mother, whereas seedlings are clean.
 
Hey Kingfish,

Sorry I missed the point, I guess perhaps I got a little self involved. I believe every above post all encompass valid points. As far as potency is considered, I think it's all genetics. In other words a good clone is just that. The same goes for a seed. We've all had some pretty positive experiences with street weed and also have had some disappointing ones. Either way I'm sure this street weed probably came from clones. I think maybe it also has a lot to do with personal preference. What I mean by that, is for instance, I like a C.B.D rich strain, something that's got mild T.H.C. On the other hand some of my friends love to get "fried". For me, a well balanced strain is definitely the way to go. It's a tough question, I find myself getting derailed again.

Hope this helps,

The Nerd
 
I read the article by Jorge Cervantes and I thought it was actually pretty interesting! It seems to corroborate what I've come to understand about clones. A clone is only as good as the seed it came from, but like seeds each clone can grow a little differently based on its environment (plants grow differently in a window than under an HPS, or in the cold vs the heat!). From what he's saying, and what I've learned from other growers, it seems like proper care allows you to keep a clone line going almost indefinitely (in Jorge's tests up to 20+ generations) without a loss of potency or other bad effects as long as you get rid of any weak or slow-growing clones.

There's a lot of growers who believe that taking clones of clones causes lost potency but I just don't think that's true as long as you only keep good clones and never clone a non-vigorous plant. I know some specific lines have been around and kept alive for over a decade by dedicated growers and breeders taking clones every few months, and choosing the best ones to become new mothers, letting the strain live on. Jorge talks about starting with an F1 hybrid seed as a mother, because F1 hybrids are the gold standard when it comes to the most hardy and fastest growing plants.

Another thing he mentioned was also really interesting to me. He mentioned the variability of plant gender before it first gets expressed and how if you take a clone from a plant before it expresses gender via pre-flowers, that the resulting clone doesn't necessarily have the same gender as the parent plant. It seems like something happens in the first few weeks that "sets" the gender of the plant, and once pre-flowers show up first, clones from then on will always end up being the same gender. I knew a grower once who actually had "tricks" he said would increase the number of female plants you get from a batch of regular seeds. I made a new post about it if anyone is interested :)
 
I didn't know that. But even with that being true, with 3000+ strains to choose from I think someone could find something they like from a fem seeds.
personaly,, if I only grew NL I would Br happy.
 
Unfortunately, many breeders work almost exclusively with regular seeds. Grand Daddy Purple, TGA, Rare Dankness to name a few.
 
There is no theory behind any of this. Purely observation. To me it seemed like the clones where a bit more potent. But like I said before, it must have been wishful thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top