Bob MacGregor wrote:
> Even if it is true that grafting creates some sort of metabolic imbalance in
> the tree or the fruit, what are the practical implications of this? Are you
> implying that fruit from grafted trees is nutritionally inferior to fruit from
> the same variety grown from seed or a cutting/tissue culture?
There are functional differences, both perceptual and behavioral, that occur in
the consumer. These can be but haven't yet been quantified instrumentally, so
you're either going to have to take my word for it or set up a subjective
experiment (unless you've got access to the intruments). Either way,
(subjectively or instrumentally), I could provide you with a few pointers if
you're interested.
Also, while a tree grown cutting will not display and convey the negative effects
of grafting, it will not be equal to an original grown from seed. Some fruit
bearing plants, principally monocotyledons (i.e. pineapples & bananas), are
usually grown from offshoots and no longer carry viable seed, although there are
varieties that do carry seed capable of germinating.
> Folks are always in a hurry. Grafting (and, even genetic engineering)
> are just signs of impatience as much as anything.
Impatience often breeds insensitivity, and insensitivity can be dangerous.
> It takes a long time
> for an apple breeder to raise trees to fruit-bearing age; grafting is a
> shortcut. People who want a mixture of varieties on the same tree
> (because of limited space) have little choice but to graft.
Little choice? The lack of choice begins when you graft, because you get what you
get - a facsimile w/ an inherent and unavoidable distortion that has nothing to do
w/ the quality of the original except to impede the connection (between consumer &
original).
> Similarly, some
> good-tasting varieties don't make very good root stock, or one may want
> dwarf or semi-dwarf characteristics not inherent to the fruit stock.
Maybe the problem is related to what "one may want". Also, not making a "very
good root stock" may be related to correctable soil deficiencies. There are a lot
of "good reasons" to graft, none of which resolve the deficits that grafting
always brings.
> Maybe someday I'll be proven wrong, but I'd be surprised if there were
> any appreciable nutritional difference (if, indeed, any at all) between fruit
> from a grafted tree and fruit from a tree that is genetically homogeneous
> throughout the whole tree (eg, seed-grown, layered, tissue culture,
> cuttings or whatever).
>
> BOB
Fine Bob, I have no problem with your being surprised one of these days. And I
can appreciate the fact that you're frame of reference probably hasn't benefited
from any background in the matter. Do you have access to any fruit from good
seedling trees? In other words, is your opinion based on any degree of concrete
experience? I'm afraid that sometimes native intelligence is no substitute for
first hand information (as in counter-intelligence).
One more point: Nutritional differences may be more related to substances taken
up by non edible root stocks rather than do to grafting, but there will be
significant differences in the assimillation of similar formulations by the
consuming organism, depending on whether the tree that produced the fruit is on
it's own roots or not. (We did do some testing at UCR, so I can help you (or
someone else) look for a number of indicators, if anyone cares to follow up on
this. The botonist with whom I was working was convinced of the validity
(existence) of the difference, the problems lay in how to procede (complicated by
internal politics within the institution) and the fact that I left the area.
--Douglas M. Hinds Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
--------------63E80623A7B5040B56D47A8D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bob MacGregor wrote:
Even if it is true that grafting creates some sort of metabolic imbalance inThere are functional differences, both perceptual and behavioral, that occur in the consumer. These can be but haven't yet been quantified instrumentally, so you're either going to have to take my word for it or set up a subjective experiment (unless you've got access to the intruments). Either way, (subjectively or instrumentally), I could provide you with a few pointers if you're interested.
the tree or the fruit, what are the practical implications of this? Are you
implying that fruit from grafted trees is nutritionally inferior to fruit from
the same variety grown from seed or a cutting/tissue culture?Also, while a tree grown cutting will not display and convey the negative effects of grafting, it will not be equal to an original grown from seed. Some fruit bearing plants, principally monocotyledons (i.e. pineapples & bananas), are usually grown from offshoots and no longer carry viable seed, although there are varieties that do carry seed capable of germinating.
Folks are always in a hurry. Grafting (and, even genetic engineering)Impatience often breeds insensitivity, and insensitivity can be dangerous.
are just signs of impatience as much as anything.It takes a long timeLittle choice? The lack of choice begins when you graft, because you get what you get - a facsimile w/ an inherent and unavoidable distortion that has nothing to do w/ the quality of the original except to impede the connection (between consumer & original).
for an apple breeder to raise trees to fruit-bearing age; grafting is a
shortcut. People who want a mixture of varieties on the same tree
(because of limited space) have little choice but to graft.Similarly, someMaybe the problem is related to what "one may want". Also, not making a "very good root stock" may be related to correctable soil deficiencies. There are a lot of "good reasons" to graft, none of which resolve the deficits that grafting always brings.
good-tasting varieties don't make very good root stock, or one may want
dwarf or semi-dwarf characteristics not inherent to the fruit stock.Maybe someday I'll be proven wrong, but I'd be surprised if there wereFine Bob, I have no problem with your being surprised one of these days. And I can appreciate the fact that you're frame of reference probably hasn't benefited from any background in the matter. Do you have access to any fruit from good seedling trees? In other words, is your opinion based on any degree of concrete experience? I'm afraid that sometimes native intelligence is no substitute for first hand information (as in counter-intelligence).
any appreciable nutritional difference (if, indeed, any at all) between fruit
from a grafted tree and fruit from a tree that is genetically homogeneous
throughout the whole tree (eg, seed-grown, layered, tissue culture,
cuttings or whatever).BOB
One more point: Nutritional differences may be more related to substances taken up by non edible root stocks rather than do to grafting, but there will be significant differences in the assimillation of similar formulations by the consuming organism, depending on whether the tree that produced the fruit is on it's own roots or not. (We did do some testing at UCR, so I can help you (or someone else) look for a number of indicators, if anyone cares to follow up on this. The botonist with whom I was working was convinced of the validity (existence) of the difference, the problems lay in how to procede (complicated by internal politics within the institution) and the fact that I left the area.
--
Douglas M. Hinds
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
--------------63E80623A7B5040B56D47A8D-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".