Post by hillbillypie on Feb 22, 2011 0:12:54 GMT -5
Let me start this by saying this is not in any way personal or even directed towards any person for that matter. I feel like I needed to say that because sometimes Internet forums can be down right mean spirited and quite often what is inferred is nothing at all like what was implied. Mean people suck, and I am not mean. ;D
A.W. Livingston is considered by many to be the Father of the modern tomato. Livingston said, "The American public is not satisfied with old things, however good they may be." Livingston was saying this in response to the question if he was still developing new varieties. People don't change. Everyone always wants what is new. Whether it is ink wells or IPods, telephones or tomatoes the collector mentality is and always has been alive in humans. If that is the case and people in Livingston's time were no different than in ours, then wouldn't it be highly unlikely that very many varieties from more than 50 years ago really exist today? Wouldn't people from the 1800's and later want the newest next best thing as opposed to saving seed? Are there really that many heirlooms? Let me start by telling you how I came to this question.
I was on a trip a few years ago and stopped at a roadside farmers market. Naturally I was drawn to the Amish man's quite impressive varieties of tomatoes. I just knew I was going to find a long lost heirloom or at the very least sample an old fashion tomato that I had heard about, but never grown. I asked the man if he knew the names of the varieties and he said he did. My excitement level grew. I started filling a bag with as many different tomatoes as I could grab. I stopped long enough to ask him what the bright yellow perfectly shaped fruit in my hand was and he replied, "Sunny Goliath". I then asked about others, "Whopper", "Mountain Spring" were the answers I got. He had one called "Big Boy" He told me "he had been growing that one for years". I couldn't help but think the guy was such a sell out to his culture. How dare him be growing these workhorse hybrids when he is supposed to be hoarding 100 year old seeds! But that got me thinking. Why wouldn't he want the latest most disease resistant hybrids?
I wonder how many people when asked about a particular tomato in their garden would reply that they have been growing it for years? This is a very important point here. Let's say in the mid 1980's you found a tomato that had been "grown for as long as anyone could remember", just how long do you think that would be? In reality I'm betting no more than 30 years or so. There was a huge urge to buy "new hybrids" in the 1950's. I wonder how many people that didn't understand that an F1 hybrid would not grow true from saved seed kept growing and
selecting every year from saved hybrid seed? It would certainly be unique, and it would be "grown for years", but it would hardly be something that is 100 years old which is what so many claim about so very many "heirlooms". "Grown for years", "as long as I can remember", and "been in the family for years" are all very subjective terms.
The second issue I find with heirlooms is the most compelling. It is impossible for some tomatoes that are claimed to be over 100 year old to have existed prior to the 1950's. There are several instances where the stories surrounding the tomato variety are totally fabricated. I am only going to mention two groups and let the rest of the readers do their own sleuthing for further evidence. As stated in a previous post about the gf or "green flesh" gene is what is responsible for giving brown, or purple or the so called "black" tomatoes their unique color. The
gf gene was not even introduced into the gene pool of tomato breeding until the late 1950's and early 60's. I'm not sure what would motivate someone to fabricate a story about Cherokee Indians growing a tomato. The more likely scenario is that the seeds got passed around the academic world pretty much the way the "blue" tomato a.k.a. P20 has made it's rounds today. The Soviet plant breeding programs worked heavily with the gf gene in the 1960's and so what we know as Cherokee Purple more likely came from good ol' Russia and not the
wigwams of Native America. I recently talked with a plant breeder that worked from the 50's-70's and he said that he worked with "dark" material in the 60's and even tested a few in the field. They didn't see a market for the tomato, so the breeding line was not pursued. I won't go into too many details with the second example, but the GWR (green when ripe) type tomato has a similar story. The genetic material for GWR, from what I have researched, was not in the gene pool until about the mid 1950's.
The third issue I have with "heirlooms" comes from the imported heirlooms. Are we really to believe that a farmer selling in Kiev, for example, would NOT have the latest, most novel, and disease resistant variety available? This is sort of arrogant isn't it? But scanning through many of the histories I have found in seed catalogs and online, it appears that there are maybe hundreds of plants that are taken from one country, then sent to someone in the United States where it is renamed and assumed to be ancient. I'm not even going to bother with examples
because there really are hundreds of them. Why would we assume that the variety found in a market or even growing in someone's garden would not be a KNOWN cultivar? And yet that is exactly what is done.
Another thought here. It seems that when someone grows a tomato that does not meet their expectations of what they thought they were
growing, they simply rename it. I have followed more than a few threads on other forums where people are growing a "new" variety or a "mutation" of an old variety with the anticipation of the new found fame that comes with introducing a new cultivar. I truly believe the "big fish in a little pond" mentality is what's driving the desire to "find" a new cultivar. I would bet that 99% of the time the "new" or "mutation" is just a seed from a known variety that accidentally found it's way into a seed trade. If there was some way to genetically test the varieties that are currently being offered in trades and at commercial vendors of Open Pollinated seeds we would have to cut 2/3 of the named varieties out of the catalogs as being the exact same as an already known variety. There is a thread currently on another forum where the tomato that was grown is genetically impossible to have been produced by the "accidental" cross that was postulated.(yellow F1 from a red parent for one thing). When faced with the genetic impossibility, they decided to call it a "mutation". I bet this time next year it is "introduced" and given a new name even though I would bet next years salary on it just being a stray seed or even mislabeled seed. I am not an expert by any means on tomato genetics. I do know a little about genetics in general. Mutations do occur. In fact, evolutionary theory is based on multiple mutations. But those mutations occur over hundreds of thousand, even millions of years. Mutations are usually what scientist call "deleterious". In other words, when a mutation occurs it is quite often deadly. A large number of mammalian miscarriages are due to a deleterious mutation. Successful mutations are actually quite rare in most species of plants and animals.
With that being said, is the tomato unique among the plant world? Are there really that many mutations? It would seem that if the tomato was really mutating at the rate being stated to account for the new varieties from "mutations", then it would be very difficult to maintain stability in any variety for very long. I wonder if these changes we see within a variety that are being called mutations are actually a phenotype that has taken multiple generations to show because it is being suppressed by linkage. Many traits associated with disease resistance are so closely linked that it takes many many generations of breeding and inbreeding to separate them. Also when there is say,an inversion in the genetic material it would be nearly impossible for it to have an effect on just one trait such as fruit color switching from red to yellow or leaf going from regular to potato leaf.
My conclusion is that I don't think there are very many true heirlooms. Many of the stories that surround the heirlooms just don't jive with the science. The world of the tomato enthusiast seems to thrive on conjecture. If we are not sure of a pedigree, then guesses are made and one is created.
I think that most of the varieties that we see called heirlooms are either segregating grow outs from F1 hybrids that were erroneously collected by someone wanting to believe they had discovered something old, introductions of KNOWN cultivars from other countries and renamed, and to a lesser extent, segregating grow outs from serendipitously created F1 hybrids. On extremely rare, and I do mean RARE occasions we will see a mutation. I suppose there are also instances with people just flat out fabricating a new name and/or story for a known cultivar. Does any of this matter? Not really. I still grow them. In fact, Cherokee Purple is just about my favorite tomato even if it did probably come from Russia instead of Indians.
I realize this is controversial and even detrimental to some, but I felt compelled to share my observations. Let us please remain friendly and civil with the ensuing discussion.
Thanks
-S-
A.W. Livingston is considered by many to be the Father of the modern tomato. Livingston said, "The American public is not satisfied with old things, however good they may be." Livingston was saying this in response to the question if he was still developing new varieties. People don't change. Everyone always wants what is new. Whether it is ink wells or IPods, telephones or tomatoes the collector mentality is and always has been alive in humans. If that is the case and people in Livingston's time were no different than in ours, then wouldn't it be highly unlikely that very many varieties from more than 50 years ago really exist today? Wouldn't people from the 1800's and later want the newest next best thing as opposed to saving seed? Are there really that many heirlooms? Let me start by telling you how I came to this question.
I was on a trip a few years ago and stopped at a roadside farmers market. Naturally I was drawn to the Amish man's quite impressive varieties of tomatoes. I just knew I was going to find a long lost heirloom or at the very least sample an old fashion tomato that I had heard about, but never grown. I asked the man if he knew the names of the varieties and he said he did. My excitement level grew. I started filling a bag with as many different tomatoes as I could grab. I stopped long enough to ask him what the bright yellow perfectly shaped fruit in my hand was and he replied, "Sunny Goliath". I then asked about others, "Whopper", "Mountain Spring" were the answers I got. He had one called "Big Boy" He told me "he had been growing that one for years". I couldn't help but think the guy was such a sell out to his culture. How dare him be growing these workhorse hybrids when he is supposed to be hoarding 100 year old seeds! But that got me thinking. Why wouldn't he want the latest most disease resistant hybrids?
I wonder how many people when asked about a particular tomato in their garden would reply that they have been growing it for years? This is a very important point here. Let's say in the mid 1980's you found a tomato that had been "grown for as long as anyone could remember", just how long do you think that would be? In reality I'm betting no more than 30 years or so. There was a huge urge to buy "new hybrids" in the 1950's. I wonder how many people that didn't understand that an F1 hybrid would not grow true from saved seed kept growing and
selecting every year from saved hybrid seed? It would certainly be unique, and it would be "grown for years", but it would hardly be something that is 100 years old which is what so many claim about so very many "heirlooms". "Grown for years", "as long as I can remember", and "been in the family for years" are all very subjective terms.
The second issue I find with heirlooms is the most compelling. It is impossible for some tomatoes that are claimed to be over 100 year old to have existed prior to the 1950's. There are several instances where the stories surrounding the tomato variety are totally fabricated. I am only going to mention two groups and let the rest of the readers do their own sleuthing for further evidence. As stated in a previous post about the gf or "green flesh" gene is what is responsible for giving brown, or purple or the so called "black" tomatoes their unique color. The
gf gene was not even introduced into the gene pool of tomato breeding until the late 1950's and early 60's. I'm not sure what would motivate someone to fabricate a story about Cherokee Indians growing a tomato. The more likely scenario is that the seeds got passed around the academic world pretty much the way the "blue" tomato a.k.a. P20 has made it's rounds today. The Soviet plant breeding programs worked heavily with the gf gene in the 1960's and so what we know as Cherokee Purple more likely came from good ol' Russia and not the
wigwams of Native America. I recently talked with a plant breeder that worked from the 50's-70's and he said that he worked with "dark" material in the 60's and even tested a few in the field. They didn't see a market for the tomato, so the breeding line was not pursued. I won't go into too many details with the second example, but the GWR (green when ripe) type tomato has a similar story. The genetic material for GWR, from what I have researched, was not in the gene pool until about the mid 1950's.
The third issue I have with "heirlooms" comes from the imported heirlooms. Are we really to believe that a farmer selling in Kiev, for example, would NOT have the latest, most novel, and disease resistant variety available? This is sort of arrogant isn't it? But scanning through many of the histories I have found in seed catalogs and online, it appears that there are maybe hundreds of plants that are taken from one country, then sent to someone in the United States where it is renamed and assumed to be ancient. I'm not even going to bother with examples
because there really are hundreds of them. Why would we assume that the variety found in a market or even growing in someone's garden would not be a KNOWN cultivar? And yet that is exactly what is done.
Another thought here. It seems that when someone grows a tomato that does not meet their expectations of what they thought they were
growing, they simply rename it. I have followed more than a few threads on other forums where people are growing a "new" variety or a "mutation" of an old variety with the anticipation of the new found fame that comes with introducing a new cultivar. I truly believe the "big fish in a little pond" mentality is what's driving the desire to "find" a new cultivar. I would bet that 99% of the time the "new" or "mutation" is just a seed from a known variety that accidentally found it's way into a seed trade. If there was some way to genetically test the varieties that are currently being offered in trades and at commercial vendors of Open Pollinated seeds we would have to cut 2/3 of the named varieties out of the catalogs as being the exact same as an already known variety. There is a thread currently on another forum where the tomato that was grown is genetically impossible to have been produced by the "accidental" cross that was postulated.(yellow F1 from a red parent for one thing). When faced with the genetic impossibility, they decided to call it a "mutation". I bet this time next year it is "introduced" and given a new name even though I would bet next years salary on it just being a stray seed or even mislabeled seed. I am not an expert by any means on tomato genetics. I do know a little about genetics in general. Mutations do occur. In fact, evolutionary theory is based on multiple mutations. But those mutations occur over hundreds of thousand, even millions of years. Mutations are usually what scientist call "deleterious". In other words, when a mutation occurs it is quite often deadly. A large number of mammalian miscarriages are due to a deleterious mutation. Successful mutations are actually quite rare in most species of plants and animals.
With that being said, is the tomato unique among the plant world? Are there really that many mutations? It would seem that if the tomato was really mutating at the rate being stated to account for the new varieties from "mutations", then it would be very difficult to maintain stability in any variety for very long. I wonder if these changes we see within a variety that are being called mutations are actually a phenotype that has taken multiple generations to show because it is being suppressed by linkage. Many traits associated with disease resistance are so closely linked that it takes many many generations of breeding and inbreeding to separate them. Also when there is say,an inversion in the genetic material it would be nearly impossible for it to have an effect on just one trait such as fruit color switching from red to yellow or leaf going from regular to potato leaf.
My conclusion is that I don't think there are very many true heirlooms. Many of the stories that surround the heirlooms just don't jive with the science. The world of the tomato enthusiast seems to thrive on conjecture. If we are not sure of a pedigree, then guesses are made and one is created.
I think that most of the varieties that we see called heirlooms are either segregating grow outs from F1 hybrids that were erroneously collected by someone wanting to believe they had discovered something old, introductions of KNOWN cultivars from other countries and renamed, and to a lesser extent, segregating grow outs from serendipitously created F1 hybrids. On extremely rare, and I do mean RARE occasions we will see a mutation. I suppose there are also instances with people just flat out fabricating a new name and/or story for a known cultivar. Does any of this matter? Not really. I still grow them. In fact, Cherokee Purple is just about my favorite tomato even if it did probably come from Russia instead of Indians.
I realize this is controversial and even detrimental to some, but I felt compelled to share my observations. Let us please remain friendly and civil with the ensuing discussion.
Thanks
-S-