> I personally feel there is a lot more at work here than just grafting.
> Grafting, layering, etc. all occur in Nature. If they were so wrong for
> the plant, Nature wouldn't tolerate them.
Ever see a two headed cow? (I have - it died at birth though).
> I can personally show you
> examples of natural grafting between two different individuals of the
> same species.
I'm aware it can happen but it's an infrecuent exception, not the norm. And even when
there's some joining, you don't get a plant with no roots stuck into a plant with no fruit
bearing parts. Try anthropomorphizing that and see what you come up with. (Unless you
can't emphasize with plants). I hope you don't think that they're there just for human
beings to fuck over (that's a legitimate use of an informal semi-technical term).
> Many plants reproduce themselves clonally in one form or
> another. Even the nucellar seedlings you speak of are actually clones
> because the embryoes form out of unreduced material tissue - tissue that
> is identical to the mother plant.
True but that's not grafting.
> For that matter, mycorrhizal fungi literally graft many different
> species together via interconnecting fungal hyphae. The fungus actually
> penetrates the roots of the plants in many cases and the threads of the
> fungi interconnect with those of other fungi connected to other plants.
> In a fully developed ecosystem, all the plants in a community are
> literally grafted, or at least interconnected together and share many of
> their photosynthates.
Getting a transfusion is not similar to creating a frankenstein. You're still dealing with
integral organisms and even the phenomenon you describe, is no where as universal as the
picture you're painting. You say, "literally grafted", but then go on to say "or at least
interconnected together". It's not the same. Also, what kinds of plants are we talking
about? How many of these are fruit bearing plants? There is no single "nature". Many
plants bear seed without producing a separate (from the seed), edible fruit. (We're
getting into a theory of diet here).
> I'd be more inclined to think that the unblanced
> biochemistry of a grafted plant was due more to disrupted biological
> systems connected to the tree than to anything the graft could do.
You may be "more inclined", but neither you nor anyone else has looked into the matter with
sufficient consistency or depth.
> Commercial orchards aren't notorious for being kept in the best
> nutritional state, as far as what makes a truly healthy fruit.
I am glad to see people thinking a little more in relation to this theme. That in itself
is an acheivement.
DH
> Douglas M. Hinds wrote:
> >
> > Lon J. Rombough wrote:
> >
> > > This is one of the most unusual ideas I've seen - that there could be a
> > > problem with grafted fruit.
> >
> > To me the unusal thing is that grafting's become so universally accepted without
> > validation. The effects of it have never been documented in depth.
> >
> > > I haven't seen all the material, so perhaps
> > > this is an unnecessary question, but do you consider only grafted trees
> > > unfit, or do you include all clonal material? What of plants that are
> > > readily grown from cuttings (such as grapes), thus are not grafted,
> > > though they are technically clonally propagated? What of tissue
> > > culture?
> >
> > There are two separate but related princples at work here. One is the wholeness of
> > the plant, and since a clone was not derived from a whole plant (a seed is a
> > biolgical program for a whole plant), an original is superior. However, the
> > diference seems to be one of degree - it's there, it's real and it's noticable, but
> > it's not a radical difference.
> >
> > On the other hand, with grafting there's a conflict, manifested in a metabolic
> > imbalance. It's not a whole organism oor even a piece of a whole organism trying to
> > regenerate the rest, it two or more organisms involutarily stuck together, neitgher
> > of which can fully do what it evolved to do. One doesn't have roots so it must take
> > what it gets from below , which is NOT what it would take idf it were on it's own
> > roots, and the other isn't allowed to produce it's own fruit. The resulting
> > difference (from that of seedling fruit) is radical.
> >
> > Studies were going to be done but weren't, due to differences in opinion regarding
> > how to procede and the fact that I left the country. The issue was broached again in
> > '94 and new plans were made, but once again I couldn't be there and it didn't
> > happen. (It depended that much on my participation).
> >
> > Once in a while I through this out (as far as I'm concerned, the GMO issue is no
> > different in nature - it's just micro not macro surgery, although admittedly there
> > may be - and generally is, a greater genetic difference between "donars", but the
> > principle is the same); and I get a few responses but that's as far as it goes. The
> > studies don't get done. Or haven't yet. And I don't have access to a suitable lab
> > just yet.
> >
> > > There is a nursery near me that has been experimenting with
> > > own-rooted trees of a number of apple varieties, propagated by tissue
> > > culture. Are you against all types of clonal propagation, or just
> > > those that involve grafting?
> >
> > The grafting is the BIG inconveniece.
> >
> > > I haven't read your thesis, so I can't comment on it directly, though
> > > I would say that it is possible to get around rootstocks in a lot of
> > > ways now besides just trying to trust to seedlings (which, as a plant
> > > breeder, I know to be a lot more variable than you seem to think).
> >
> > Some lines are extremely variable, others aren't (e.g. polyembryonic and nucellar
> > lines). In case of the former, it's a matter of seed selection, just like with row
> > crops except it takes longer. (It's been said that people are in a hurry - to get
> > nowhere, or to an inferior place)
> >
> > > Our
> > > ancestors did it often with apples and pears (which we mainly graft
> > > now), using such methods as layering and growing new trees from cuttings
> > > of the roots of the ungrafted trees. Would you consider that wrong?
> >
> > Less wrong. But remember, when you impede evolution, you lose possibilities. But
> > you don't get the built in metabolic conflict using slips & cuttings.
> >
> > > What of situations where the rootstock is vital, such as growing
> > > apples in very cold climates where the rootstock contributes the needed
> > > extra hardiness to allow the variety to survive and produce?
> > > -Lon Rombough
> > > http://www.hevanet.com/lonrom
> >
> > That hardyness can be bred into the line, with none of the disadvantages that
> > grafting is guaranteed to produce, every time.
> >
> > In short, there was a trade off involved and to my mind, the wrong choice was made.
> > (Once again - who's even bothered to look into this? Organic is supposedly natural,
> > but the movement has totally slept through this issue, as have the sustainable
> > crowd). I don't have loads of data, just a lot of personal experience that led me to
> > make a personal choice and this is a personal opinion. But I've NO doubt that the
> > basis is there - and I don't make statements like that lightly. I'm I little more
> > sure of this issue than I am of my own name - because it goes far beyond me - and I'm
> > glad to be able to make a little noise and hit a few keys, because the plants
> > themselves can't do that - though they can do things neither you or I can, i.e.
> > produce things that give life. You could tell me so do grafted trees, but I wouldn't
> > call that life. I'd call it a wicked mess (to paraphrase a recent post). You've
> > really got to live them both to get the picture.
> >
> > I've got the text of the original article and the reply from Beltsville in a file
> > somewhere that I might be able to attach for anybody interested, but it's not that
> > different from these interchanges, maybe a litlle more eloquent is all, with a few
> > footnotes. And very few people are likely to take it and walk an as yet unbeaten
> > path, even though the light is there, for those that have eyes (eyes that only need a
> > little light to see).
> >
> > DH
> >
> > > Douglas M. Hinds wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bob MacGregor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In addition to the impatience factor I mentioned in my earlier post, the
> > > > > practice of grafting is a market advantage because it homogenizes the
> > > > > product (particularly for apples).
> > > >
> > > > This is true. However, it's much more true with some fruits and varieties than
> > > > with others. Quite a few are genetically stable and are therefore ready to
> > > > grow from seed, much as an open pollinated standard variety is, in row crops.
> > > > Many strains of citrus, mangoes, some varieties of avocados, sapotes and
> > > > cherimoyas (my experience is mainly with subtropicals) have been consistently
> > > > grown from seed successfully. The exceptions will take more work, but that
> > > > involves nothing more than seed selection and a little patience. Remember that
> > > > all varieties originate from seed (except the unpredictable sport) and that
> > > > being variable means that the offspring can be better, worse or just different
> > > > (not all people share the same preferences, and not all varieties will be
> > > > adaptable to the same conditions, anyway).
> > > >
> > > > > My acreage -- indeed the whole of
> > > > > Prince Edward Island -- is covered by scattered apple tree seedlings. In
> > > > > the late summer/early fall, I enjoy going on walks and sampling the
> > > > > apples. Every one is different (which would make it hard to establish a
> > > > > reliable market presence) and many (I'd say most) are not very palatable.
> > > > > Trying to establish a whole orchard of more-or-less similar apple trees
> > > > > from seed would be a big, very time-consuming job, I'd think.
> > > >
> > > > You are looking at a marketing problem. I am looking at a defect that as far
> > > > as I'm concerned, makes all grafted fruit unfit to eat. I literally hate
> > > > eating it, and the only time I do so is by mistake. The difference is much more
> > > > than qualitative. It's a totally different experience and I want no part of
> > > > it. Of course the difference was noted in the late 60īs, so I've had ample
> > > > opportunity to build on it.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you take seed from the best seedlings and maintain a moist seed bed?
> > > > It would be interesting to note what percentage of those proved to be of
> > > > exceptional quality, and what percentage reverted to something less desirable
> > > > (that may never the less be genetically valuable).
> > > >
> > > > > I seem to recall from my years in Riverside that citrus and stone fruits
> > > > > grew pretty well there, but we had to head to the hills to find successful
> > > > > apple orchards (Riverside didn't have adequate cold dormancy period for
> > > > > reliable apple production -- or, maybe it was the smog!!). Was the UCR
> > > > > research on apples or pears or on stone-fruit?
> > > >
> > > > I was working with Bob Berg and it was avocados, most (but not all ) of which
> > > > were in Tustin. But I've have access to other groves with many seedlings (The
> > > > U. of Arizona, The USDA groves in Palm Desert, Brock Ranches between Yuma and
> > > > El Centro, and many private groves in CA and Mexico). I do remember some
> > > > excellent seedling pears.
> > > >
> > > > > We did a minor amount
> > > > > of grafting of plums, apricots and peaches at home in Riverside, but I
> > > > > never noticed any difference in flavour between the fruit from the parent
> > > > > (seed-grown) tree and that from the grafted stock.
> > > >
> > > > Many or most plums and apricots will also come true to seed. To perceive the
> > > > difference you should eat the seedlings before ingesting anything else that
> > > > day. And once you eat single a grafted fruit you'll lose your edge and find it
> > > > hard to regain it during the course of that day and sometimes even for the next
> > > > few days. I'd rather eat non organic seedlings (within reason - if not drowned
> > > > in insecticide), than grafted organic fruit. (Obviously organic seedlings
> > > > would be best). And good seedling strains that come true to seed will have to
> > > > be developed in many cases. They're individuals, of course. Grafting is an
> > > > abominable form of cloning (which is bad enough in itself), because there's
> > > > always a degree of conflict between rootstock and scion.
> > > >
> > > > > On my land, it has been my observation that the wild apple seedlings are
> > > > > very vigourous and hardy. In addition, because they are mostly
> > > > > scattered around the edges of old fields and pastures, they tend to have
> > > > > very little insect damage compared to fruit or trees in an unattended (ie,
> > > > > untreated) orchard situation. A futher observation (though not a
> > > > > rigourously-quantified one) of mine is that the trees with the best-tasting
> > > > > fruit seem to be the ones that are more likely to be girdled by mice in the
> > > > > winter (I have lost some of my favourites this way).
> > > >
> > > > Why do they do that? Do they prefer them? You should be able to keep the mice
> > > > off your trees (use tanglefoot or grease / vaseline over a plastic band, or a
> > > > shallow water filled concrete basin - it could be a bicycle tire cut in half
> > > > and dug in to ground level, etc.).
> > > >
> > > > > My long-term plan
> > > > > is to graft scions from the good-tasting wild apples onto the vigourous,
> > > > > and more mouse-resistant rootstock of the sour wild apples (and prune
> > > > > appropriately over subsequent years).
> > > >
> > > > You won't get the same results. It will be a caricature of the wild favorite.
> > > >
> > > > > I don't expect the resulting fruit
> > > > > to be harmful to me or to the wildlife that share the fruit with me.
> > > >
> > > > Harmful? How harmful is it to not live? To not be yourself? It's deprivation
> > > > and distortion. It's like disease.
> > > >
> > > > > As I
> > > > > continue to get to know my apples better, I'll know which ones I like best
> > > > > for fresh eating, for pies, for applesauce. I don't care much whether my
> > > > > wild apples are "brand name" MacIntosh, Red Delicious, Jonathan or
> > > > > whatever -- but when I buy apples in the grocery store, I like to have a
> > > > > little more predictability in what I'm buying (my local stores frown on
> > > > > taste-testing as you go). I just don't see large-volume fruit supply
> > > > > working very well (at least for apples) without grafting.
> > > >
> > > > Not for now it won't. People depend on labels, but that's in large part due to
> > > > having lost their own power of discrimination.
> > > >
> > > > > I agree that your hypothesis about grafting _could_ be correct, but I
> > > > > remain to be convinced of significant -- if any -- adverse effects of
> > > > > grafting.
> > > >
> > > > Neither you nor anybody else is going to be convinced as long as there's no
> > > > availability. There's no basis for comparison.
> > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, since it doesn't seem to be a research priority
> > > > > for anyone, we aren't likely to find out the truth of the matter anytime
> > > > > soon.
> > > >
> > > > That's correct. No one who doesn't bother to look into it, is going to know
> > > > whether he's missing anything or not.
> > > >
> > > > > BOB
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > 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".
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> > U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked)
> > U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked)
> > Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct)
> > e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
--Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
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".