nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio
List archive
[nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling
- From: "Christopher Mauchline" <mauch1@aol.com>
- To: nafex@egroups.com
- Subject: [nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:29:41 -0000
Ed Fackler wrote:
>>>>>>
With apple, and probably many other fruit species, the so-called
"genetic variation
being lost" is a gross misnomer for the following reason(s), or so it
appears to
me. When the apple left the origin, it did so primarily by seed
either by
man or animal.
Somewhere very early in the process, perhaps in as little as 1-2000
years,
the more tasty ones
were preferred and those incredibly few "genes" moved via the silk
route to
modern
hybridization (in Great Britian in the 1700s).
Since then, with the notable exception of M. floribunda 821 crab
(the
most effective or active
ventura (scab) resistant gene), most apple varieties available today
(including most antiques)
possess incredibly few gene variations due simply to centuries of
inbreeding.
>>>>>>
I agree with some points:
Isn't true that most orchards until the recent era were seed
propagated? That would have retained significant variation. Some
new variation may have occurred in the "selected" stock.
As to the amount of inbreeding that exists in apples I'm not sure. I
have read that for grain and many other breeding programs, inbreeding
with the occasional out-cross is the preferred way to develop a
variety. But for fruit breeding, inbreeding is not preferred as the
homozygous (alike genes) in the same location makes for for a weak
plant (especially in apple). Is this because they are already inbred
Or is it resistant to inbreeding?
I would propose that definitely not every Fameuse, Delicious,
Jonathan descendant/cross be preserved, but those varieties that
either is known to have a unique heritage, or didn't figure in most
modern breeding programs should be preserved (and only some of the
best of those).
I think someone suggested our clonal repositories as a safety net for
varieties. I think that they do a good job and do provide a some
degree of safety, but that they are also subject to the vagaries of
govermental funding.
Chris Mauchline
SE PA, zone 6
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/423498/_/978100185/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
-
[nafex] Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling,
jhecksel, 12/27/2000
- [nafex] home gardener's errors, dwalsh/wchase, 12/27/2000
-
Re: [nafex] Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling,
Ed & Pat Fackler, 12/28/2000
-
[nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling,
Christopher Mauchline, 12/28/2000
-
Re: [nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling,
Ed & Pat Fackler, 12/28/2000
- [nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling, Christopher Mauchline, 12/29/2000
-
Re: [nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling,
Ed & Pat Fackler, 12/28/2000
-
[nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling,
Christopher Mauchline, 12/28/2000
-
[nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling,
Christopher Mauchline, 12/28/2000
- Re: [nafex] Re: Are your plants working for you? AKA, Ruthless culling, Ginda Fisher, 12/28/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.