Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
Jon: We grew Liberty for many years in So. Indiana on MM111, and various interstems (including M9, B9 and P2) where it matured in early September. It was annually productive, color was adequate (much better than most all strains of McIntosh which is a near total disaster in Zone 6). When adequately thinned size was good or 2 3/4 to 3 on average. Storage at 32 degrees in common refrigeration was 6-7 weeks (at best). Where CAR is a huge problem (most of the lower mid west and south), Liberty is near immune. I'd rate its fresh eating flavor as goodnot great. ed On 3/29/07, Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In further defense of Liberty, it is a cool-climate apple like McIntosh, hence does best where McIntosh grows and colors best. (Although I have seen some very nice Liberty from northern NJ.) Yes, it will be small unless thinned adequately but responds to BA applications during the thinning window. Very consistent cropper from year to year. Short harvest window (less than one week), but when it is right, it does have a very good tart-sweet flavor and good texture. ReTain will improve the harvest window length and quality in storage. Makes very good fresh cider by itself or as an ingredient. (Depending on your taste for certain kinds of cider.) Makes a very good pie. And yes, a curculio magnet -- which may make it very useful as a 'trap tree' for monitoring. :-) Jon Jon Clements Extension Tree Fruit Specialist UMass Cold Spring Orchard 393 Sabin Street Belchertown, MA 01007 VOICE 413.478.7219 FAX 413.323.0382 IM mrhoneycrisp Skype Name mrhoneycrisp On Mar 28, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Steve Demuth wrote: Bill, First a caveat: I am not a professional grower, so my standards probably differ from those who have to sell apples for a living. I have Liberty on Bud9, and MM111/M9 interstems. I use most of my crop for drying - Liberty's texture in the ten days or so before it is truly ripe is firm enough, but not too firm, and the flavor when dried is quite nice. I also make quite a bit of unfermented juice from the smaller end of the crop. As for eating and storing: they are firm and tart enough that I like them, but they certainly are not spectacular. On the technical plus side, they have been reliable annual bearers for me, and the scab resistance is very beneficial for me. On the technical minus side, Liberty is hard for me to get to size well, and they seem to be an absolute magnet for plum curculio (anyone else seen this, or is it just my imagination?). Pristine is simply as good an early August apple as I've ever been able to grow. Technically, its one drawback is that it doesn't hang particularly well. I have them on Bud9, and no irrigation (in NE Iowa), and I think that water and heat stress in late July really hits this combination rather hard, causing me to lose a lot of fruit in the 2 weeks or so before they are ripe. At 06:05 AM 3/28/2007, you wrote: Steve I've been growing Liberty and Pristine for about 10 years on B9 for evaluation in northern Illinois. It's taken awhile to appreciate them. But last year we had a very nice crop of Pristine. For the first time, I really enjoyed them. Flavor was great, flesh color and texture were very good for such an early apple (second week of August). I gave quite a few away and people were very fond of them. But Liberty has not developed the culinary quality I would want in a fresh apple. What are the characteristics of Liberty that you find compelling? Bill Shoemaker, Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops University of Illinois - St Charles Horticulture Research Center www.nres.uiuc.edu/faculty/directory/shoemaker_wh.html The apples I rely most on are all products of breeding programs, and the two I would most loath giving up are PRI varieties: Liberty and Pristine. Steve Demuth Decorah, Iowa - -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. Steve Demuth Decorah, Iowa Various forms of religious madness are quite common in the United States ... -- Alexis de Tocqueville -- - The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
Good comments Con. I think that true sustainability will be more akin to IPM than to the set of rules developed for organic. It will probably involve the use of pesticides that are not organically approved, particularly some of the new generation materials. It will probably involve genetic engineering, but with more careful oversight. It will, by necessity, involve careful accountancy. If a grower cannot make a profit, he cannot be sustainable. But most importantly, as you imply, it will need to involve a energy budget. The world really only has one energy source. We have lots of stored energy (e.g. petroleum) we are wasting as fast as we can profit from it. But it is limited. Once we regain our senses and begin to account for energy useage as the fundamental component of sustainability, we will begin to have a better sense of how we can develop sustainable systems, which by definition will be economic models. Bill Shoemaker, Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops University of Illinois - St Charles Horticulture Research Center www.nres.uiuc.edu/faculty/directory/shoemaker_wh.html Hello again Chris and all contributors, I hope that I did not come across as too negative about the potential of scab (or other pest or disease) resistant varieties. What I hoped to get across is that nature is not static, and that it is virtually inevitable that resistance will be broken down by the pathogen, sooner or later. As was outlined by Jean-Marc, this has already been documented for Vf scab resistance. So resistance is not a solution in itself, and once it is broken down, it is too late, so it needs to be preserved by thoughtful orchard practice. I think the reality is that we need to consider using whatever we can to control pests and diseases. That may include forecasting models, sanitation, trapping systems, resistance, chemical control, and all the other mechanisms that many growers are already familiar with, and I am sure, some that have not been thought of yet. I agree with Chris about the potential benefit of fire-blight resistance; it would be revolutionary. However, if that resistance is to come via genetic modification, then we need to be very careful to assess if there will be any potential negative consequences, and if there are, to make sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. Con PS. Just to get back to the sustainability question. If a kg of apples gives the consumer 2300 kJ of energy, then it is no longer sustainable to eat these apples if it takes more than 2300kJ to produce the apples. If the apples are grown in your back yard, then clearly it does not take as much energy to go out and pick and eat one as the energy you will get from it. If you had to walk 1000 miles to get it, then you would probably starve on the way, so this is not a good proposition. If a truck has to drive 1000 miles to get them, the situation becomes less clear, especially when you consider the energy that had to be put into growing the fruits, spraying them, picking them, and so forth. By rough calculation, if an apple has to travel more than 3000 road miles in a fully-laden truck to get to market, it is costing more energy to make its journey, than the final consumer is getting by eating it. -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 March 2007 16:05 To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same) Bill: Do you have a spray program controlling scab on other varieties? And my addition to many previous comments of recent weeks. Reistance to apple scab offers considerable help to growers that can market those varieties. Consider the potential benefit(s) of fire blight resistance in apple and pear, whether it is natural of GMO. Chris Doll -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same) Gary I'm not aware of apple scab resistance having developed against Vf the Vf gene, specifically the PRI varieties. I have had Pristine, Enterprise, Dayton, Liberty, Redfree and Goldrush planted here for 10 years and they are very clean. Perhaps others can correct me. Bill Shoemaker, Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops University of Illinois - St Charles Horticulture Research Center www.nres.uiuc.edu/faculty/directory/shoemaker_wh.html There have been several postings about Vf resistant scab being a possibility since most resistant varieties share this gene. However, these varieties have been around for quite a while now--is there any information about resistance showing up anywhere? Is there something different about Vf resistance that would save it from what happened to Baldwin or Bramley
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
Bill: Do you have a spray program controlling scab on other varieties? And my addition to many previous comments of recent weeks. Reistance to apple scab offers considerable help to growers that can market those varieties. Consider the potential benefit(s) of fire blight resistance in apple and pear, whether it is natural of GMO. Chris Doll -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 8:57 AM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same) Gary I'm not aware of apple scab resistance having developed against Vf the Vf gene, specifically the PRI varieties. I have had Pristine, Enterprise, Dayton, Liberty, Redfree and Goldrush planted here for 10 years and they are very clean. Perhaps others can correct me. Bill Shoemaker, Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops University of Illinois - St Charles Horticulture Research Center www.nres.uiuc.edu/faculty/directory/shoemaker_wh.html There have been several postings about Vf resistant scab being a possibility since most resistant varieties share this gene. However, these varieties have been around for quite a while now--is there any information about resistance showing up anywhere? Is there something different about Vf resistance that would save it from what happened to Baldwin or Bramley? Gary Mount, Grower Princeton, NJ - Original Message - From: Bill Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Apple-Crop apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:05 AM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same) Steve I've been growing Liberty and Pristine for about 10 years on B9 for evaluation in northern Illinois. It's taken awhile to appreciate them. But last year we had a very nice crop of Pristine. For the first time, I really enjoyed them. Flavor was great, flesh color and texture were very good for such an early apple (second week of August). I gave quite a few away and people were very fond of them. But Liberty has not developed the culinary quality I would want in a fresh apple. What are the characteristics of Liberty that you find compelling? Bill Shoemaker, Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops University of Illinois - St Charles Horticulture Research Center www.nres.uiuc.edu/faculty/directory/shoemaker_wh.html The apples I rely most on are all products of breeding programs, and the two I would most loath giving up are PRI varieties: Liberty and Pristine. Steve Demuth Decorah, Iowa -- - The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
Bill, First a caveat: I am not a professional grower, so my standards probably differ from those who have to sell apples for a living. I have Liberty on Bud9, and MM111/M9 interstems. I use most of my crop for drying - Liberty's texture in the ten days or so before it is truly ripe is firm enough, but not too firm, and the flavor when dried is quite nice. I also make quite a bit of unfermented juice from the smaller end of the crop. As for eating and storing: they are firm and tart enough that I like them, but they certainly are not spectacular. On the technical plus side, they have been reliable annual bearers for me, and the scab resistance is very beneficial for me. On the technical minus side, Liberty is hard for me to get to size well, and they seem to be an absolute magnet for plum curculio (anyone else seen this, or is it just my imagination?). Pristine is simply as good an early August apple as I've ever been able to grow. Technically, its one drawback is that it doesn't hang particularly well. I have them on Bud9, and no irrigation (in NE Iowa), and I think that water and heat stress in late July really hits this combination rather hard, causing me to lose a lot of fruit in the 2 weeks or so before they are ripe. At 06:05 AM 3/28/2007, you wrote: Steve I've been growing Liberty and Pristine for about 10 years on B9 for evaluation in northern Illinois. It's taken awhile to appreciate them. But last year we had a very nice crop of Pristine. For the first time, I really enjoyed them. Flavor was great, flesh color and texture were very good for such an early apple (second week of August). I gave quite a few away and people were very fond of them. But Liberty has not developed the culinary quality I would want in a fresh apple. What are the characteristics of Liberty that you find compelling? Bill Shoemaker, Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops University of Illinois - St Charles Horticulture Research Center www.nres.uiuc.edu/faculty/directory/shoemaker_wh.html The apples I rely most on are all products of breeding programs, and the two I would most loath giving up are PRI varieties: Liberty and Pristine. Steve Demuth Decorah, Iowa --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. Steve Demuth Decorah, Iowa Various forms of religious madness are quite common in the United States ... -- Alexis de Tocqueville --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
That's an important point Arthur - of the thousands of heirloom (antique) apples, there are misnamed varieties, duplicate names, and synonyms, and many strains have been developed from them. A scab prone Baldwin might not actually be a Baldwin. It is not always easy to know if a variety is in fact true to name, or just similar. Scionwood gets mixed up when labeling, tags get lost, or people just forget what the variety was that their grandfather planted. I have grown over 150 varieties, old and new, over the past 35 years. This is a small number of varieties compared to the many thousands listed in various pomology books published over the last few centuries. The Book of Apples published in 1993 by the Brogdale Horticultural Trust in England describes over 2000 varieties (cultivars) in their orchard collection. There are also repositories in the United States that have rescued several thousand antique varieties as well as accessions from Kazakhstan where all our domestic varieties originate from. I read somewhere that all the apples described in the two volume Apples of New York (the Bible for identifying old varieties), published in 1905, were chance seedlings except one variety. Except for one, the rest were not deliberate crosses. The observation here then, is that over a period of several hundreds or thousands of years people would select chance seedlings that suited them best for propagation in their area. This was before the 1880's when chemicals were introduced to control diseases and insect pests. If they lived in a warm, humid region which encouraged scab and fire blight, they would avoid planting varieties prone to these diseases. This was a form of natural selection and a type of informal breeding program. At least 90% of the old varieties I have collected from orchards (often abandoned) in my region do not get scab and this is a highly scab prone area.. Other varieties prone to scab here might grow clean in dryer regions without the need for fungicide applications. This observation becomes apparent in organizations like NAFEX where members exchange varieties from across the country. Wealthy is one great old variety that is highly resistant to scab. So is Gideon. Both originated with Peter Gideon in Minnesota (chance seedlings also). The late Fred Janson (one of the founders of NAFEX) believed, from his observation of many years, that Blenheim Orange was completely immune to fire blight. Sadly, such varieties were dropped from the market place when chemicals made control of diseases possible for susceptible varieties. Of course the concern for pesticide and fungicide on health has prompted the search for natural/genetic resistance in apples over the past three or four decades. Dr. Robert Lamb did a lot of research in this area and introduced some wonderful new resistant varieties. None were perfect, some dropped early, or they didn't keep well, or were biennial, etc. But still, there have been some very good resistant varieties developed. Many growers have tried some of them. Redfree is one that gets a good reputation in some areas. Liberty, Prima, and Freedom are also good disease resistant varieties, but may vary in quality from region to region, and they may require more rigid harvesting requirements. There are hundreds more. The problem with these new disease resistant varieties, or even many old heirloom varieties that resist disease, is not their color, nor their flavor, nor storage and shipping quality, but in marketing and public acceptance. Daryl Hunter Keswick Ridge NB Canada - Original Message - From: Arthur Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Apple-Crop apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:07 PM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same) Certainly in New England at this time, Baldwin is very close to scab immune. But not all trees described as Baldwin are necessarily genetically the same. Yes, the organic apples grown in eastern Europe or western Asia would not meet American standards for appearance or other qualities, although consumers seem to accept them. So maybe there is something we don't know. --- Daniel Cooley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mo, you're right about the breeding programs attempting to develop resistant varieties, but I'm not sure they've done it. Some history: up until the last part of the 1800's, with rare exceptions, the varieties of apples grown commercially were from chance seedlings. It was common in the early 1800's in New England to throw a bunch of seeds from cider pomice out and scratch them into the ground, in a year or two transplant the ones that looked promising , and then after that see which trees had reasonably edible fruit. Of course, there were named varieties, in fact, lots of them. One source I've read suggested that there may have been as many as 14,000 named apple varieties in the U.S. at the peak in the nineteenth
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
The interaction between host and pathogen, for example, between apple and scab, is a two-way street. Heavy planting of any one cultivar puts tremendous selection pressure on the pathogen, particularly if the only way it can survive is to infect a host. We don't really understand all the ins and outs of resistance and pathogenicity between apples and Venturia inaequalis. However,f fungi and other microorganisms can change rapidly under selection pressure. For ex., we have resistance to a number of fungicides, and in some cases it can develop in a matter of a few growing seasons. MacHardy's point, and I agree, is that strains of Venturia develop which are adapted to different cultivars. So sure, people screw up when they graft and propagate apples. But host resistance is only half the story. Pathogens can and do change quickly when conditions demand it of them. Considering that the vast majority of resistance used in apple breeding has been a single gene, Vf, I'd bet that widespread use of those cultivars would soon lead to a strain of scab that could overcome the resistance. The resistance present in some of the old cultivars is much more interesting. Chances are that there are more genes involved, and that therefore it would be more stable. However, if the problem with heirloom or modern scab resistant cultivars is consumer acceptance, it suggests that consumers don't like them. Maybe that's why the heirlooms became heirlooms. On the other hand, people's tastes are becoming more varied and sophisticated, so maybe some aggressive marketing would do the trick. Dan Daniel R. Cooley413-577-3803 Dept. of Plant, Soil Insect Sci. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fernald Hall 103 University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 FAX 413-545-2115 http://people.umass.edu/dcooley/
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
Do triploid apple varieties have any increased level of disease resistance? Sometimes multi-ploidy (polyploidy? superploidy?... whatever) is related to pest resistance in plants, right? I guess in apples, if it exists, it would be rather accidental, I mean nobody was exactly breeding for such traits. ? Kathleen At 10:55 PM 3/26/2007 -0400, you wrote: The interaction between host and pathogen, for example, between apple and scab, is a two-way street. Heavy planting of any one cultivar puts tremendous selection pressure on the pathogen, particularly if the only way it can survive is to infect a host. We don't really understand all the ins and outs of resistance and pathogenicity between apples and Venturia inaequalis. However,f fungi and other microorganisms can change rapidly under selection pressure. For ex., we have resistance to a number of fungicides, and in some cases it can develop in a matter of a few growing seasons. MacHardy's point, and I agree, is that strains of Venturia develop which are adapted to different cultivars. So sure, people screw up when they graft and propagate apples. But host resistance is only half the story. Pathogens can and do change quickly when conditions demand it of them. Considering that the vast majority of resistance used in apple breeding has been a single gene, Vf, I'd bet that widespread use of those cultivars would soon lead to a strain of scab that could overcome the resistance. The resistance present in some of the old cultivars is much more interesting. Chances are that there are more genes involved, and that therefore it would be more stable. However, if the problem with heirloom or modern scab resistant cultivars is consumer acceptance, it suggests that consumers don't like them. Maybe that's why the heirlooms became heirlooms. On the other hand, people's tastes are becoming more varied and sophisticated, so maybe some aggressive marketing would do the trick. Dan Daniel R. Cooley 413-577-3803 Dept. of Plant, Soil Insect Sci. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fernald Hall 103 University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 FAX 413-545-2115 http://people.umass.edu/dcooley/ --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent "official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
I completely agree. Note that I have never argued for unregulated use of GM technology, but rather for smart, science-based use of it by the organic movement. To my recollection, the vast majority of knowledgeable people who did not have a financial interest in Monsanto's Bt technology, argued from the outset that inserting Bt genes into Cotton or Corn alone was foolish, and would squander the Bt effect. It's not like we don't understand the evolution of resistance, after all. We've seen it with every single-mode, blanket attack on pests we've tried in the last 100 years. This is something that IPM proponents, organic and otherwise, have very wisely gotten right in the last 20 years in the orchard industry. At 03:40 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote: Regarding concerns with GMO's, transgenic technology, and lack of real evidence of environmental problems. Offhand I know of at least one incidence - Bt Cotton, inserting Bt bacterial genes into cotton (patented by Monsanto as Bollgard cotton). Bt cottonseed, genetically modified to produce its own insecticide, was introduced in India in 2002. Between 2003 and 2005, the market share of Bt seed created through collaboration between US based Monsanto Co. and several Indian companies rose to 62 percent from 12 percent = . India emerged as the dominant supplier of cotton yarn in the world. There is a problem though. The farmers in India are spreading the Bt cotton genetics to other varieties of cotton, perhaps from not understanding this new technology and also from continuing their traditional cultivation practices. So Monsanto is upset with the farmers not respecting its genetic patents. In 2006 Monsanto's monopoly over Bt cotton technology in India ended when two new players the Hyderabad-based JK Agri-Genetics Ltd and Nath Seeds Ltd of Aurangabad, launched Bt cotton hybrids based on alternate technologies. So now there are more companies producing and patenting genetically modified cotton seeds. Roll back ten years in the US where cotton growers were using Bollgard and expecting a 95% effective control against the Boll Weevil as promoted by Monsanto. Instead they only got a 60 - 65% control on the weevils. The strength of Bt in the GM plant tissue was insufficient to kill all the beetles. Nearly 40% munched on the GMO crop and lived to reproduce their tough genetics. Michael Hansen, a research associate with the Consumer Policy Institute, described the situation as being the quickest way to produce resistance. It couldn't have been designed any better to do away with this important tool. The US farmers went to court for false advertising, saying that the cotton wasn't living up to its promoted resistance and they were having to supplement with additional insecticide sprays. This didn't stop Monsanto from moving its product to India. Last year in India we learned that the Bt cotton is no longer living up to expectations there as well. I wonder why? The farmers there are also suing for the same reason. So, in the end what has been the overall result? A new super strain of cotton insect pests in two countries that are even harder to control than ever before. Daryl Hunter Keswick Ridge NB Canada - Original Message - From: Philip Smith mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Apple-Crop mailto:apple-crop@virtualorchard.netapple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:04 PM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same) Arthur, I think you have raised a central point in this debate. You are relying heavily on intuition and your own views. I'm sure that you are a smart guy and that your intuition is generally good, but the implication is that you distrust science and that you will make your choices based on what seems right to you. Were we all to adopt that approach, things would probably be chaotic and learning and understanding would not progress very well. When it came to making rules, who's opinion would we rely upon. I've often stated that I'm a huge fan of cooperative extension and the reason is that they provide guidance based on the best scientific understanding currently available. Yes, science is wrong sometimes, but that's not a reason to distrust it. I can think of no better way of deciding what is true or not than to test it scientifically even if we err on occasion.. The fact that some things smell bad is scientifically sound. Your brain is telling you to avoid eating them. Poop for example. As for your contention that organic foods taste better, I would think that it might be difficult to substantiate that based soley on the means of cultivation. And is it healthier? That remains a matter of opinion, doesn't it? Messing with the natural genetic order of things may be risky, but so is space exploration. One of the wonderful aspects of human beings is their inquisitive nature and desire to explore. Whether it's
RE: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
I wouldn't advocate always following intuition. We also have brains to integrate our experience and reason with intuition. But when faced with extravagant claims by GMO people, that there is little or no risk---well, intuition can be useful here. As for organic food tasting better---if it doesn't, I am usually reluctant to pay the premium. True, apples are hard to compare because of different varieties, soils, maturity, etc. In general, I cannot say that organic apples taste better, but I usually buy them anyway because of my long years working in orchards where co-workers were sickened by Guthion or other stuff. I guess this is just a personal fluke of mine. And of course organic apples will not have Alar used which degraded the flavor, or whatver they are using nowadays. --- Steve Demuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arthur, In fact, I buy organic for two reasons: 1. The local coop where I buy most of the food I buy, preferentially stocks organic. 2. The local growers whose overall approach to horticulturea and agriculture I most admire have chose to be organic certified. I choose the coop because I admire and very much want to support their business model, and dedication to supporting local producers. Both from a capital and a cash flow perspective, I'd rather my money stay local when possible. I choose to support local growers, even though I disagree with the organic movement as a whole, for the same reason. I have seen no convincing evidence, and certainly cannot vouch by my own experience, for the notion that organic is either better for me, or tastes better than responsibly raised non-organic produce. I can tell the difference between an apple that was picked yesterday at just the right degree of ripeness, and one that has hung on the tree for 2 days too long in a blind test, but I can't tell the difference between my friends' organic apples and mine that have received a small amount of chemical fertilizer, and non-certifiable spray or two blind or otherwise. As for intuition: I don't trust mine to give the right answer to big, complex questions. My intuition would easily convince me that CO2 from the gasoline I burn cannot possibly be damaging something as big as the global atmosphere. The science is pretty compelling that it is. My intuition makes me feel safer in my family car than in the back seat of a jetliner, and safer in the front seat of the jetliner than in the back; both conclusions are demonstrably wrong. Closer to home on the food front, my intuition (or instinct - which is a variety of the same) tells me to eat sweet, greasy foods; science again demonstrates that is not the right choice. Science can of course be wrong as well, but at least it self-consciously tries to correct its errors. Intuition just chugs along in a self-satisfied fashion. At 08:21 AM 3/17/2007, you wrote: Well, I share the reason you have elicited from various people as to why they buy organic---I think it's healthier. In a similar way, I avoid foods that smell bad, even without scientific proof that they are poisonous. And even though some bad-smelling foods are actually ok. So when someone says GMO's are safe because no proof to the contrary has been scientifically established---well, I use my intuition which tells me that messing with the natural genetic order of things could be very risky, especially without generations of study. And this argument about the lack of scientific proof making them safe, is made even by scientists who should know better. Which makes me skeptical about the authority of scientists. We all, scientists or not, have to proceed on the best wisdom we have at the moment. Apparently you do that too, as you buy some organic foods. Or is it just because they taste better? --- Steve Demuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Risk analyses are routinely made for all sorts of situations on things that haven't even been done yet; I think it hardly stretches the imagination to do it on technologies that have been studied for a couple of decades. That not enough studies are being done is due to bad policy choices by regulators, and unscrupulous manipulation of the policy process by large agri-business, neither of which do I approve. But it's also because there are few voices of reason pushing for good analysis: while agri-business has taken a blunt force approach to pushing GMOs into the food chain, the organic movement has stuck it's head in the sand and rejected the science without analysis. More shame on both of them, if you ask me, but hardly a reason to reject out of hand the notion of using the technology. As for consumer rejection: you're probably right, but only because the scare tactics of an anti-science movement has created the mindset for that rejection. Just as earlier posters have argued
RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
In New Jersey all local growers who apply pesticides are certified and licensed. They could not buy or spray pesticides unless they received the necessary training and certification. They also must follow stringent label regulations from the federal government. Many also follow Integrated Pest Management Guidelines from Rutgers Cooperative Extension. For these reasons I think our local organic and conventional growers are honest and of the highest integrity. I also value local growers because they are a tax benefit to my community in a state where property taxes are a big issue, they employ local people, they support a diversified business and community infrastructure, they conserve water and recharge groundwater, they maintain thousands of acres of contiguous woodland, buffers, and prevent soil erosion, the preserve open space, provide wildlife habitat, etc. etc. It is much more enjoyable experience to take my family and drive through farmland and visit a local farm than it is to get in my car and drive to the local mega giant super center that selling cheap produce from a distant location. Jerome L. Frecon Ag Agent and County Extension Dept. Head Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension Of Gloucester County 1200 North Delsea Drive Clayton, N.J. 08312 856307-6450 Ext 1 Fax 856 307-6476 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gloucester.rcre.rutgers.edu -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Demuth Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:23 PM To: Apple-Crop Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article Kurt, I actually agree with you that you, and other farmers, are probably better served by the personal relationship than they would be by certification alone (nothing, I might add, prevents one from benefiting from both). My point was that the consumer's trust is based mostly on the good feelings from the personal relationship, even though there is no demonstrable correlation between this and the things that people claim to value about food production methods. And the physician example is in fact perfectly apropos. Firstly, because physicians are certified, and required to periodically re-certify in their chose area of practice. I suspect it matters a great deal to most people that their doctor actually graduated from medical school, finished a residency, and is regularly re-certified in their speciality. Secondly, it is true that people do choose physicians on recommendations, and personal trust. And, it's a lousy way to choose them. Having been involved research on clinical outcomes, I can say quite certainly that the fact that a physician appears competent, caring and trustworthy is very poorly correlated with whether or not they produce above or below average results for their patients. Many well-loved physicians are, statistically at least, a very bad bet for your health. This of course hardly bolsters my case for certification. Despite our best efforts to certify physician competence, there is still a huge variance in quality. However, there is an important difference between organic certification and doctor certification: organic certification certifies methods, not knowledge alone. There is a movement afoot in the medical field to start doing this with hospitals (if you can't verify that every post heart-attack patient is getting the most proven effective drug regimen, you may lose your blessing as a cardiac care center); organic already does this with horticultural practice. All of this is not to say that I think organic is an altogether great thing. I don't actually like the direction that organic has taken in the last 20 years; many of the regulations in the current certification are to my mind just plain wrong headed. And I certainly think that a local, ecologically-minded agriculture is preferable in many ways to a distant, organically certified one. But, how am I know to that my local grower is following best horticultural, pesticide, and ecological practice. Trust? Not alone. On this one I'm with Ronald Reagan, trust but verify. That is the value of certification. Which bring me back to my starting point: this isn't an either or. Can't there be a certification program for ecologically sound agriculture that steers clear of the silliness in the organic standards, and which tells me something useful about what is going on the farm? At 02:18 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote: Fellow Growers, I think that Steve's conclusion about the gullibility of consumers is a little misdirected. I have found that what consumers (people) really value and desire in America is personal relationships. Certification may well serve and be necessary for the 900 mile local model as well as the box stores but I believe that it has been born out of the realization of these retailers that they must somehow compete with the consumer desire to have a personal
RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
d desire in America is personal relationships.Certification may well serve and be necessary for the 900 mile "local" model as well as the box stores but I believe that it has been born out of the realization of these retailers that they must somehow compete with the consumer desire to have a personal relationship with a person that they trust.I view the situation as being similar to having a physician.One generally chooses a personal physician not based on the fact that they have a PhD from a prestigious university and scored well on their finals, but rather on the recommendation and endorsements from others who have established trusting personal relationships with that physician.Defining consumer trust may be mostly subjective, but it is very real.To a retailer, it manifests the bottom line.I feel much more confident building our retail farm business on our ability to create, build, and maintain personal relationships with the consumers that we serve (and we do this successfully with 10 of thousands of customers) as opposed to trusting our future business growth to a bureaucratic regulatory certification program.Indeed, as growers we must always endeavor to do our job correctly in order to produce safe and nutritious food, but it is the personal relationship that people really want and desire.And it is this reality, I believe, that will solidify and grow the retail farm market consumer spending share that is being aggressively sought after by the box stores and supermarkets. Kurt W. Alstede General Manager Alstede Farms, LLC P. O. Box 278 Chester, New Jersey 07930 United States of AmericaTel.908-879-7189 -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Demuth Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:34 PM To: Apple-Crop Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time articlePeople often do trust things they are familiar with.Unfortunately, they do this without much analysis of whether this is wise.That people trust locally grown and marketed produce says nothing whatsoever about the nutritional, economic or ecological bona fides of such product.That can only be done by well enforced certification programs.And that, whatever the faults of organic certification (and there are certainly many), is the real benefit of the organic label.So, while I am a great proponent for consuming locally grown produce, I think that Kurt's endorsement below points out mostly the gullibility of consumers, not anything virtuous about local production.Even the "petroleum miles" benefit claimed in the Time piece is not necessarily as obvious as it seems.If one hauls 30,000lbs of apples cross country (say, 3,000 miles) in a semi-trailer, that can easily burn 600 gallons of fuel.But, suppose 2000 consumers drive out to their local U-pick an average distance of 10 miles round trip to get an average of 15 lbs of apples each.That's thte same 30,000lbs of product.Want to bet which uses more petroleum?In fact, the consumers would have to average 33+ miles/gallon to beat the truckload - highly unlikely with today's cars.And if the local producer is delivering to local markets, rather than running a U-pick?The economics probably favor the local produce in this case, assuming an efficient and truly local route, but the margin will whither rapidly if they are delivering partial loads with 200+ mile round trips.And, as for the certainty a consumer may feel that a local grower from whom they buy personally will be attentive to safe use of pesticides and sound land use - a clean farm storefront, firm handshake and welcome smile no more assure this than good manners make used car salesmen honest.Most local growers do pay attention to these things, of course, but then so do most organic growers (particularly as they need to worry about inspections to assure that they do).Again, the advantage to the consumer of the local grower is more about perception than reality.My favorite analogy in this department is airplane travel.I don't really care whether I know personally the mechanic who services the next AirBus or Boeing that I get on.I do care that there are certification programs for the mechanic, the airframe, the pilot, and basically everything else to do with my flight.So too with food.Again, organic has gone directions that I sincerely disagree with, but I think the notion of certification is at it's core, a lot more valuable to society than "a farmer you know and trust." At 08:42 AM 3/11/2007, you wrote: Hello Jon, You are right on as was the Time Article.In the final analysis, people trust the face and the person that they can see and touch...their local farmer.We have seen this to be the case in all of our direct marketing and have cultivated it in all of our advertising and marketing efforts.I was thrilled to see Time give this subject favorable front
RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
Fellow Growers, I think that Steve's conclusion about the gullibility of consumers is a little misdirected. I have found that what consumers (people) really value and desire in America is personal relationships. Certification may well serve and be necessary for the 900 mile local model as well as the box stores but I believe that it has been born out of the realization of these retailers that they must somehow compete with the consumer desire to have a personal relationship with a person that they trust. I view the situation as being similar to having a physician. One generally chooses a personal physician not based on the fact that they have a PhD from a prestigious university and scored well on their finals, but rather on the recommendation and endorsements from others who have established trusting personal relationships with that physician. Defining consumer trust may be mostly subjective, but it is very real. To a retailer, it manifests the bottom line. I feel much more confident building our retail farm business on our ability to create, build, and maintain personal relationships with the consumers that we serve (and we do this successfully with 10 of thousands of customers) as opposed to trusting our future business growth to a bureaucratic regulatory certification program. Indeed, as growers we must always endeavor to do our job correctly in order to produce safe and nutritious food, but it is the personal relationship that people really want and desire. And it is this reality, I believe, that will solidify and grow the retail farm market consumer spending share that is being aggressively sought after by the box stores and supermarkets. Kurt W. Alstede General Manager Alstede Farms, LLC P. O. Box 278 Chester, New Jersey 07930 United States of America Tel. 908-879-7189 -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Demuth Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:34 PM To: Apple-Crop Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article People often do trust things they are familiar with. Unfortunately, they do this without much analysis of whether this is wise. That people trust locally grown and marketed produce says nothing whatsoever about the nutritional, economic or ecological bona fides of such product. That can only be done by well enforced certification programs. And that, whatever the faults of organic certification (and there are certainly many), is the real benefit of the organic label. So, while I am a great proponent for consuming locally grown produce, I think that Kurt's endorsement below points out mostly the gullibility of consumers, not anything virtuous about local production. Even the petroleum miles benefit claimed in the Time piece is not necessarily as obvious as it seems. If one hauls 30,000lbs of apples cross country (say, 3,000 miles) in a semi-trailer, that can easily burn 600 gallons of fuel. But, suppose 2000 consumers drive out to their local U-pick an average distance of 10 miles round trip to get an average of 15 lbs of apples each. That's thte same 30,000lbs of product. Want to bet which uses more petroleum? In fact, the consumers would have to average 33+ miles/gallon to beat the truckload - highly unlikely with today's cars. And if the local producer is delivering to local markets, rather than running a U-pick? The economics probably favor the local produce in this case, assuming an efficient and truly local route, but the margin will whither rapidly if they are delivering partial loads with 200+ mile round trips. And, as for the certainty a consumer may feel that a local grower from whom they buy personally will be attentive to safe use of pesticides and sound land use - a clean farm storefront, firm handshake and welcome smile no more assure this than good manners make used car salesmen honest. Most local growers do pay attention to these things, of course, but then so do most organic growers (particularly as they need to worry about inspections to assure that they do). Again, the advantage to the consumer of the local grower is more about perception than reality. My favorite analogy in this department is airplane travel. I don't really care whether I know personally the mechanic who services the next AirBus or Boeing that I get on. I do care that there are certification programs for the mechanic, the airframe, the pilot, and basically everything else to do with my flight. So too with food. Again, organic has gone directions that I sincerely disagree with, but I think the notion of certification is at it's core, a lot more valuable to society than a farmer you know and trust. At 08:42 AM 3/11/2007, you wrote: Hello Jon, You are right on as was the Time Article. In the final analysis, people trust the face and the person that they can see and touch...their local farmer. We have seen this to be the case in all of our direct marketing and have
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article
As a grower in the southeast I have worked with Dr. Sutton and Dr Walgenbach for 3 years on a small (4 acre) trial in growing organic. BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
Re: Apple-Crop: Time article
Feel the glo! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html Getting warmer! http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070312,00.html Better call the fire department! http://artwork.barewalls.com/artwork/product.html?ArtworkID=284590 Mo Tougas Tougas Family Farm Northborough,MA On Mar 10, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Jon Clements wrote: Although I am hesitant to fan any embers -- I know there are quite a few out there -- into flames, it might be worth your while to pick up the March 12th issue of Time magazine. There is a cover article on organic vs. 'buy local.' A couple quotes: In the end I bought both apples (organic vs. 'conventional New York state local'). They were both good, although the California one had a mealy bit, possibly from it's journey. (Is the author English -- a mealy bit?) Eating locally also seems safer. Ted's (an upstate NY diversified producer) neighbors and customers can see how he farms. That transparency doesn't exist with, say, spinach bagged by a distant agribusiness. I help keep Ted in business, and he helps keep me fed -- and the elegance and sustainability of that exchange make more sense to me than gambling on faceless producers who stamp ORGANIC on a package thousands of miles from home. Now, I have been trying to fully explain the phenomenal direct- market sales many Massachusetts apple growers -- and I understand it was beyond MA too -- had last season. I know the weather was good, and that makes a huge difference, but I am starting to think the buy local campaigns are really kicking in? I found the article interesting, and reasonably balanced, and something we should all be paying attention too. If you did not catch his drift, the author clearly thought buying 'conventional local' was preferable to buying agribusiness 'organic' -- particularly if the petroleum environmental cost was figured in. Any embers glowing brighter yet? :-) Jon Jon Clements Extension Tree Fruit Specialist UMass Cold Spring Orchard 393 Sabin Street Belchertown, MA 01007 VOICE 413.478.7219 FAX 413.323.0382 IM mrhoneycrisp Skype Name mrhoneycrisp -- - The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchardhttp://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and JonClements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not representofficial opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility forthe content. --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
