rebuilding Iraq heritage seed

[PapaVic]

Dec 29, 2008 18:37:10 GMT -5 canadamike said:

In commercial hybrids, there is the word commercial, hence an intent on the part of the breeder, who is paid so you eat shit that loves trucking and pesticides.

Sorry, but I feel strongly that this is the exact type of gross generalization that establishes a divide between us.

It's also the type of generalization that leads folks who would assume the sayer of such things is sufficiently authoritative in the subject that the generalization is an absolute.

To examine a few "exceptions to the rule," let's just take tomatoes as an example.

Breeders have worked diligently to incorporate higher lycopene, anthocyanin, and other healthy additions to the tomato. This work results in an inexpensive source of antioxidants (via canned sauces, salsas, ketchups and other condiments) to a far greater population who previously did not have physical or economic access to fresh blueberries and other fruits and veggies that provide such dietary benefits.

Breeders have worked diligently to incorporated genes or accentuate genetic characteristics to prevent skin cracking in tomatoes so the fruit stays sound longer, and bacteria and insects are kept from invading the interior of the fruit on the way to and at the market.

Breeders have worked to raise the pectin content of tomatoes so that they don't go to mush or otherwise deteriorate under refrigeration on the way to market or while in refrigerated storage.

Breeders have incorporated genetics from wild tomatoes to make domestic (and yes "commercial") tomatoes able to grow in saline soils and salt atmospheres ... like on small islands where the population could otherwise not enjoy fresh tomatoes.

Breeders also have incorporated wild tomato genes to enhance disease and pest resistance into "commercial" and home garden tomato varieties.

Is it not part of human nature to endevour to improve our food crops?

I feel strongly that in many many cases, the "commercial" tomatoes resulting from the breeders' efforts to improve L. esculentum cannot be discounted simply as "shit that loves trucking and pesticides."

Furthermore, and at the risk of raising the ire of folks who cast me as pompous (or whatever monikers were used) for saying so in the lprevious (disappearing) thread on the same subject, I must say that such statements and sentiments are chauvenistic in that they discount entirely a huge percentage of the human race who unfortunately live in geographic areas or urban habitats that preclude their ability to raise their own produce and must depend upon food crops that are mechanically harvested and shipped to market.

Are these fellow humans not entitled to fresh produce and processed products that otherwise would be unavailable were it not for "commercial" cultivars, resulting from professional breeding programs, that are capable of withstanding the conditions and procedures through which such produce must endure to make it from the field to the table?

If a particular species of food crop has inherent weeknesses that can be reduced or eliminated through manual outcrossing (hybridizing), etc., is it not fundamentally human to do so ... especially if it can provide improved nutrition to a greater number of fellow humans?

Or should folks who live beyond the limits past which "heirloom" produce can be practically shipped have to just "eat rotten shit that can't stand up to trucking and cold storage?"

Bill

[canadamike]

I agree Bill, sorry if I was not clear and badly expressed myself. Improving food quality , an intent at better nutrition, is noble and great.

I was talking about the breeding of the shit I get at the store just now...and most of the time. Many commercial tomatoes are indeed excellent, some are favorites of home gardeners, like Mr Doucet's in Québec.... I was just aiming at the breeding for transportation and pesticide tolerance, anything not related to nutrition, really., and also tasteless...

I taught I was clear but you are right, I can see where there could have been confusion.

I rephrase my last point:

So, hybrid or not, commercial or not, if it is healthy and good in my mouth it is OK for me. As simple as that.

I consider the process bringing it to me to be around 10,000 years old, anyway, many years pre-Viagra, and it will still be around when I need it ...

I hope I think I am clear, now.

[PapaVic]

I get that now ... missed it the first time out, Michel. Sorry. Must've read it too fast.

[PapaVic]

Back on the subject of hybrid vigor ...

If anyone really thinks hybrid vigor is a myth, they may be interested in reading this article:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081123150255.htm

Just food for thought.

Bill

[PapaVic]

Excerpts from that article include the following:

"Hybrid plants, like corn, grow bigger and better than their parents because many of their genes for photosynthesis and starch metabolism are more active during the day, report researchers from The University of Texas at Austin in a new study published in the journal Nature."

"Until now, the molecular mechanisms for hybrid and polyploid vigor have largely been unknown."

"The key, Chen and his colleagues studying Arabidopsis plants found, is the increased expression of genes involved in photosynthesis and starch metabolism in hybrids and polyploids. These genes were expressed at high levels during the day, several-fold increases over their parents."

"The hybrids and polyploids exhibited increased photosynthesis, higher amounts of chlorophyll and greater starch accumulation than their parents, all of which led to their growing larger."

"With this knowledge, Chen says they can now develop genomic and biotechnological tools to find and make better hybrids and polyploids."

"'We can think about screening parent plants for these genes and selecting the ones to make the best hybrids,' says Chen. 'This could all be done through traditional breeding techniques and could have a huge impact on generating higher biomass crops for biofuels and increasing yield in many food crops.'"

[PapaVic]

And for those who have the impression that contemporary plant breeders are hellbent on GMOs, here is an interesting article:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001012074556.htm

Excerpts from this article include the following:

Working with teosinte, a wild cousin of maize, a University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist has found a molecular barrier that, bred into modern hybrid corn, is capable of completely locking out foreign genes, including those from genetically modified corn.

"The discovery is important because it means farmers will have access to a technology that can ensure the genetic integrity of their corn crop, making it easier to export to countries wary of recombinant DNA technology and providing a built-in buffer for potential environmental problems such as the threat to monarch butterflies from corn engineered to make its own biological insecticides."

There's more, so please take time to read it.

Bill

[PatrickW]

Dec 29, 2008 21:22:28 GMT -5 canadamike said:

I agree Bill, sorry if I was not clear and badly expressed myself. Improving food quality , an intent at better nutrition, is noble and great.

I was talking about the breeding of the shit I get at the store just now...and most of the time. Many commercial tomatoes are indeed excellent, some are favorites of home gardeners, like Mr Doucet's in Québec.... I was just aiming at the breeding for transportation and pesticide tolerance, anything not related to nutrition, really., and also tasteless...

I taught I was clear but you are right, I can see where there could have been confusion.

I rephrase my last point:

So, hybrid or not, commercial or not, if it is healthy and good in my mouth it is OK for me. As simple as that.

I consider the process bringing it to me to be around 10,000 years old, anyway, many years pre-Viagra, and it will still be around when I need it ...

I hope I think I am clear, now.

Okay, here's where I disagree with both of you (but only a little bit).

I am completely un-phased by any COMMERCIAL breeding effort aimed at health benefit. Lycopene in tradtional tomatoes, anthocyanin in GM or traditional tomatoes, golden rice, whatever the vitamin du jour is, I don't think it's interesting. By the same token I don't drink diet soda because I'm afraid sugar might be bad for me, if I smoked it wouldn't be light cigarettes, I don't eat low salt, low fat, high protein, low carbohydrate, low calorie, high fiber, oily fish, high Omega-3, low Omega-6, vitamin enriched cereals or anything else with health claims or supposed dietary benefits. For what it's worth, I never really have.

My focus is on whole foods of traditional origin, produced and prepared in a natural way. If any of you read Michael Pollan, this is largely his position too.

For decades now the food industry has been making huge profits by dividing up the foods we eat into their component parts and selling them to us one at a time. Making us afraid of what we eat because it might make us fat, or sick, or we might be missing some critical vitamin. In recent years this has been in response to studies proving older foods were healthier for us because they contained more anthocyanin or organic tomatoes were better because they contained more lycopene. There is just no indication that plants breed specially to contain more of these elements are any healthier for us than anything else.

The only thing these studies prove is older and traditionally breed food varieties and organic foods are healthier for us than our modern diets. Beyond this, it's all marketing, and there is no credible information to suggest any of it is true or ever was.

By the way, in Europe they are working very hard to ban this kind of marketing. Cigarettes are not allowed to be called light here. Very few health claims are allowed to be made of foods. I read something that starting in a year or two any food claiming to be low fat, salt or sugar will have to be low in all three and there is a legal definition as to what 'low' really means. Not many people drink diet drinks here, nor do they follow diets high or low in anything. I am quite certain GM tomatoes claiming to be healthier would not go down well here, nor would such marketing be allowed.

This is very much an issue that divides the people of North America and Europe, and has for a long time. For that reason I think it's a bit like discussing guns or abortion, there's not likely to be any winners or losers in the discussion, so I'm probably going to wrap it up with this post. I will read any responses others have however, and might make a comment or two if I think I have something truly new to add.

For what it's worth, when commercial varieties really, truly and honestly are better for some reason than anything else that's available, I'm all for dehybridizing and otherwise using the genes for our own purposes as well as just growing them in the garden. There are arguably a few cases where this is true.

[PapaVic]

For what it's worth ...

Here is where the argument started:
" ... there's lots of rhetoric and advertising slogans that go with promoting commercial seed varieties. For example there is the often discussed F1 hybrid vigor which is supposed to make these commercial seeds more productive in a wider range of environments, While there might be some people here that disagree with this, in fact there have been many credible studies that show hybrid vigor is a complete myth." [Patrick]

In the following three pages of discussion, it has been shown that:

1) There are substantial benefits realized by breeding programs that produce improved varieties.

2) The improvements to domestic cultivars are not all advertising hype, but proven reality.

3) Hybrid vigor indeed exists and can be of benefit to humans, animals and natural habitat.

Here is where the argument ends:
"For what it's worth, when commercial varieties really, truly and honestly are better for some reason than anything else that's available, I'm all for dehybridizing and otherwise using the genes for our own purposes as well as just growing them in the garden. There are arguably a few cases where this is true." [Patrick]

Though I don't really know what "arguably a few cases" means when unbiased, open eyes can clearly see a cornucopia of improved cultivars have been provided by the dedicated efforts of professional plant breeders.

Bill

[Alan]

All I will say is that Patrick is most certainly entitled to grow only OP varieties and there is certainly nothing wrong with that if you want to do just as Bill is entitled to grow only hybrids if he wishes and there is no problem with that.

When it comes to myself, I'll probably continue to use commercially available non GMO varieties for foundation stock and ocassionally grow some new hybrids while avoiding any and all chemical reliance and relying only on traditional growing methods.

There is room for those who wish to do both in the world and nothing wrong with either.

I will also however continue to liberate NON GMO PVP varieties through breeding experiments, liberating valuable genes from these varieties and putting them back in the PUBLIC DOMAIN where they belong, something that isn't illegal. Even if it was illegal, I'd still do it because it is the right thing to do.

I also will continue to speak out about GMO's, the dangers of GMO's, the pirating of traditional varieties in Iraq and around the world, and the ever increasing control of our food supply, revealing to the world what a bunch of BS is going on around the world. It's what I do and I'll continue to do so.

I want to see this thread and interest in Iraq continue, because what is going on is dangerous, unfounded, and uncalled for.

However, I personally do believe that hybrids do have their place in agriculture, but so does self sustainability and natural soil fertility and pest resistance and or natural remidies for pests and disease while GMO and non-organic practices do not.

[PapaVic]

And I don't have a single argument with what you just said, Alan.

In fact, I grow very few hybrids myself although I love making my own hybrids in the home garden.

I don't use synthetic insecticides, herbicides or fungicides in my home garden except occasionally on roses and a few other ornamental perennials. I do use synthetic fertilizer to supplement my larger use of composted organic matter and natural source fertilizers. My use of synthetic fertilizer is mostly confined to container growing of tomatoes and peppers, but I occasionally side dress tomato vines in my raised beds with 9-12-12 granular.

But then I'm a small time home gardener and not tending hundreds of acres. If I were a large scale farmer, I might employ whatever techniques worked successfully without causing mass extinction of beneficial species.

I'm not as concerned as you with "liberating" genes from PVPs etc. as I am more interested in incorporating disease resistance and other positive or interesting characteristics into already wonderful open pollinated tomatoes ... as a hobby rather than as an advocacy.

I also love to cross widely different tomatoes just to see what the hell comes of it, or cross two tomatoes that would appear to meld complementarily into each other.

I have never grown a GMO knowingly and have no interest in doing so.

And if I truly thought there were tomatoes of Iraqi heritage worth preserving, I would set aside some space to do so. But the three that are available from Baker Creek don't really seem all that special. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Best wishes for a prosperous New Year to everyone, and may our sisters and brothers in arms return home safely and soon.

Bill

[grunt]

Old is not necessarily better, new has to be taken through the evolutionary survival process. We started out by having to adapt to our surroundings, and now try to adapt our surroundings to us. We glean what is beneficial, and discard what is detrimental to us. We still have to adapt or perish. Commercialism just makes the job a little more difficult, because too often, profit/power is the motivator, not benefit.
If we had not been adapting (both ways), we wouldn't have any of the agriculture that we are arguing over here. We have to have the hybrids (natural or intentional) to develop the new strains, but we have to have the old strains as building blocks to make the new strains from.
In the end it is as Michel said, "chicken or egg?", but we have to have both.
Cheers
Dan

[johno]

For what it's worth, in 2007, Rouge D'Irak was a good and reliable medium sized tomato for me - among the most reliable of 40ish varieties that year.

[raymondo]

An interesting thread, though it wandered off course.

Iraq is to wheat what India is to eggplants - a centre of biological diversity. Wheat is thought to have originated in the Mesopotamian basin, and is still home to quite an array of wheat land races. Iraqi farmers have, until recently, planted a diverse mix of seed, with different characteristics, a strategy which appears to have served them well for some time.
On April 26th, 2004, Order 81 (of the so-called 100 orders) was signed into Iraqi law by Paul Bremer. Order 81's official title is Amendments to Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law and is, in effect, a tightening of already existing Iraqi laws covering intellectual property rights. Once enacted, the coast was clear for the likes of Monsanto to move in and set up shop.
The story here is a repetition of what goes on world-wide. The West uses its political muscle, or occasionally military muscle, to provide markets for its corporate citizens. Iraqi farmers are now encouraged to grow one of six officially promoted wheat varieties, three of them developed as pasta wheats, which Iraqis traditionally do not eat. The incredible diversity of wheats, and other cereals, will, I'm sure slowly disappear from Iraqi farms.
However, I have no doubt that they won't disappear altogether. They will quietly become the property of a company like Monsanto and be removed from the public domain.

[bunkie]

from ohiorganic...

Order 81 and the plunder of farming

www.business-standard.com/india/news/latha-jishnu-order-81the-plunderfarming/353518/

In recent days, the multinational force in Iraq has been putting out
rather curious news releases. These state that visiting agriculture
experts from the US have been helping Iraqi farmers to learn new farming
techniques to help them “to compete in a free market economy by reducing
prices”. Team Borlaug, as the expert group is called, is working to set
up model farms where farmers can see the newest technology and
techniques in action, according to a statement attributed to Dustin
Kinder, the leader. Kirkuk is the third province in northern Iraq that
the team has studied and after a six-month tour it will put together
recommendations to improve Iraqi agriculture that has been in a shambles
since the mid-1990s when global sanctions were imposed on the country.

There is an intolerable air of patronage — and duplicity — about the
latest statement emanating from the military command of the occupying
forces. It reflects a gross ignorance of the history of agriculture in
the country which is now paying the price for Saddam Hussein’s
adventurism and the Rambo-like invasion by US. Iraq, it must be
remembered, has the oldest history of farming and one of the longest
traditions of cultivation in the civilised world. Modern Iraq is part of
the ‘fertile crescent’ of Mesopotamia where man first domesticated wheat
more than 8,000 years ago, and is home to several thousand varieties of
local wheat.

True, its production of wheat has declined to just a quarter of what it
was in 1995 (1.2 million tonnes) and the land is degraded to a shocking
degree. But the focus of the revival strategy that is under way in Iraq
is intended not to help its farmers so much as to allow multinational
seed companies to capture the market. Listen to Kinder whose entire team
is linked to Texas A&M University: “We are going to help 25th Infantry
Division put on an agricultural conference, and we will help them
develop a strategic plan for agriculture in Iraq.” What the nation or
its farmers want is not really the centre piece of this effort since the
US has effectively tied up the Iraqi market for its seed giant.....more......

[stevenvance]

Its good to see this thread getting back on topic. Its one that has some importance to me, as a combat medic who served two tours over there. The plunder, and marketing/selling (for lack of a better word) of Iraq sickens me. Almost any agency working over there is likely suspect.

Having recently made a decision to concentrate on saving seeds/plants from Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, I certainly have been planning to try and gather together as many different varieties from Iraq as possible. I suspect that may be the best bet for many of their traditional crops/varieties. Much in the sense that zoos are trying to preserve endangered species who have insufficient habitat, people should try and keep as many of their plants going as possible, and maybe, in time, we'll be able to reintroduce them to their original home.

Steven