Do You Think…

[SpiritFarmVa]

There are thousands of fig varieties, but not in one orchard. Many commercial orchards have many of just a few varieties and even the average home grower will just have one or two of the same varieties commonly offered at nurseries. So what is actually grown on large scale is from a small number of varieties. And if those varieties have a weakness for a certain thing, it makes sense why a certain pest could spread so rapidly.

At least, that’s what I think… As stated above, there are many factors involved.

I agree commercially there is a big risk. And that’s a weakness of monoculture agriculture.
Fortunately the BFF doesn’t kill the tree so new varieties could be grafted onto existing trees to change varieties.
My comment was based on a different context. I was thinking overall vs commercial orchards with only a variety or two.
Fortunately figs aren’t a calorie crop.

 

[ktrain]

I am it sure this is true. Crocodilians for example do not, they only die from illness or injury. They don’t even know how old the oldest crocodilian is. Koi can live 500 plus years and look at bonsai I think the oldest one is over 500. I’m not disagreeing in principle but there are exceptions to this.

I think plant clones are like age resets in a sense.

Who lives long enough to age a 500 year old fish. lol
Not so sure I believe that.
Or that fact that crocs only die of disease or injury...where is the proof of this?

 

[SpiritFarmVa]

Who lives long enough to age a 500 year old fish. lol
Not so sure I believe that.
Or that fact that crocs only die of disease or injury...where is the proof of this?

There are koi in Japan that are 500 as far as I know multiple generations of the same family have cared for them.

 

[ktrain]

So in humans and animals our dna actually ages. So like when they cloned the sheep dolly it was the same genetic age as the original. Plants dna code does not age. Different outcomes from propagation have to do with disease, insects, plants health and so on.
Keeping your mother plant juvenile but heavy pruning helps keep vigorous material. Plus it is important to replace mother plants with strong replacements every so often.
Individual plants do age if not kept juvenile.
Example is in coppicing, a white oak left to grow may live 250 years then age and die. But if coppiced before 15 years and repeatedly coppiced every few years, whatever the rotation is, can live 800-1000 years. And it’s usually disease or physical damage that destroy it.

How can you say that plant cells do not age and deteriorate?
Of course they do...why do you think leaves turn color and die?
The cells are aging and dying just like human or animal.
There is a name for it, senescence.

 

[SpiritFarmVa]

How can you say that plant cells do not age and deteriorate?
Of course they do...why do you think leaves turn color and die?
The cells are aging and dying just like human or animal.
There is a name for it, senescence.

Individual cells do age. But they are also continuously replaced with new cells. I was referring to the aging of dna. And human dna and plant dna do have differences when it comes to genetic aging.

Plants don’t senesce because the dna code gets old but because the cells get old. Which is why coppicing works. You renew the plant continuously keeping it in a juvenile sate.

Some living things dna breaks down over time some things don’t.

 

[SpiritFarmVa]

Who lives long enough to age a 500 year old fish. lol

The oldest koi was 230 to correct myself.

 

[ktrain]

Individual cells do age. But they are also continuously replaced with new cells. I was referring to the aging of dna. And human dna and plant dna do have differences when it comes to genetic aging.

Plants don’t senesce because the dna code gets old but because the cells get old. Which is why coppicing works. You renew the plant continuously keeping it in a juvenile sate.

Some living things dna breaks down over time some things don’t.

I was talking about cells in the first place not dna...cells age, in plants like in humans as I stated.
There are differences in the way cells act in plants than in other things , my point was that they do age....deteriorate and die.

 

[Steven J.]

HA! It was exactly because of watching videos on landrace potatoes I was thinking of this. (Side point, I just purchased a bunch of TPS to see if I can get a landrace potato going for me as the seed potatoes generally don’t do well for me here.)

My fig seedlings seem hardier, but I don’t if they actually are. I was thinking about it in relation to BFF, contemplating why now after all these years that it’s affecting so much. I know the answer people will want to give to that, but I don’t think it’s a full picture answer. But also with how many cuttings start off with nutrient deficiencies, mites, or what people call FMV… is it because they’re “weak” more than just in the sense of getting started… I dunno.

Aha! I knew it
I like the way you think. We are on a very similar journey.

 

[TorontoJoe]

Interesting question.... I don't have the answer... only more questions

"Do we have weaker trees because we repeatedly clone the same varieties?"

Why "weaker" If there is some change perhaps it's "stronger" or "better"?

I wonder how commercial growers would manage this? Pretty much every commercial fruit crop is grown my grafting the desired variety to a root stock. Is a naval orange or Macintosh apple different than one grown 50 years ago? I assume they get their scions from trees that were themselves originally grafted

 

[Inflorescence]

Interesting question.... I don't have the answer... only more questions

"Do we have weaker trees because we repeatedly clone the same varieties?"

Why "weaker" If there is some change perhaps it's "stronger" or "better"?

I wonder how commercial growers would manage this? Pretty much every commercial fruit crop is grown my grafting the desired variety to a root stock. Is a naval orange or Macintosh apple different than one grown 50 years ago? I assume they get their scions from trees that were themselves originally grafted

It does lead to more questions, right? Not really looking for a black and white answer, I don’t think one exists anyhow at this time, just an interesting discussion.

“Weaker” in the sense of whether over time there is any quality degradation. For many varieties, we don’t have access to the original mother trees to compare. I think a mother tree will always be stronger than whatever is produced from a cutting, at least to a degree.

But also “weaker” in the sense of having the same exact genetics over a wide area. So if those varieties have weaknesses within them, they are the only varieties most people are growing, so it creates a condition where a singular pest or disease could cause a big issue because the varieties being grown share the same weakness or susceptibility to that pest or disease.

 

[SpiritFarmVa]

Weaker” in the sense of whether over time there is any quality degradation. For many varieties, we don’t have access to the original mother trees to compare. I think a mother tree will always be stronger than whatever is produced from a cutting, at least to a degree.

Depending on the age, care, and state of the original tree, progeny could be actually better.
Just as weaker strains could have been taken from the mother, so could stronger strains.
Individual plants will age.
The question as I am reading it is , does the genetic code in the dna degrade over time? I’m sure there are limits, is it 100,200, 500, a 1000 years before this happens?

 

[GoodFriendMike]

I think many of us are thinking the same thing.
If you take a cutting from a healthy branch or tree. You will get a healthy tree.
But if you collect the cutting from a weak tree or a weak branch. You may get a weak tree.
If we propagate only the healthiest of cuttings/trees we will continue to get healthy trees.

 

[SpiritFarmVa]

I think many of us are thinking the same thing.
If you take a cutting from a healthy branch or tree. You will get a healthy tree.
But if you collect the cutting from a weak tree or a weak branch. You may get a weak tree.
If we propagate only the healthiest of cuttings/trees we will continue to get healthy trees.

To go one step further. If we only take the best cuttings, and we replace mother trees every so often as we get stronger strains, could the variety be continuously improving instead of declining?

 

[GoodFriendMike]

To go one step further. If we only take the best cuttings, and we replace mother trees every so often as we get stronger strains, could the variety be continuously improving instead of declining?

Yes

 

[Inflorescence]

Or, is a variety the way it is with a limited capacity for expression (meaning it can only be what it is), even with healthy cuttings, and is the only way to improve it through breeding and introducing different genetics?

 

[GoodFriendMike]

Or, is a variety the way it is with a limited capacity for expression (meaning it can only be what it is), even with healthy cuttings, and is the only way to improve it through breeding and introducing different genetics?

I believe thru selective breeding you can "improve" any living thing.
Or simply improve it to your liking. But your likes may differ than someone else's.

 

[SpiritFarmVa]

Or, is a variety the way it is with a limited capacity for expression (meaning it can only be what it is), even with healthy cuttings, and is the only way to improve it through breeding and introducing different genetics?

I do believe there are limits to improvement through asexual propagation. And breeding is the way to create new genetics with your desired traits.

Breeding will always be necessary for a myriad of different reasons. But preservation of old genetics will too for the purpose of future breeding. In some cases breeding isn’t to be better but just different.

Sexual propagation and asexual propagation serve different purposes. You breed for new genetics, you clone to replicate the new genetics.
When it comes to cloning the question is how long are the genetics stable before we need new genetics.

 

[SpiritFarmVa]

Or, is a variety the way it is with a limited capacity for expression (meaning it can only be what it is), even with healthy cuttings, and is the only way to improve it through breeding and introducing different genetics?

When it comes to breeding, I would ask what is the desired outcome? And are there varieties that already exist which serve those purposes. Or are new varieties needed?
What you want and what I want may be different. Is it for novelty or for commercial production. Maybe you are specifically breeding rootstock.

Just things to ponder.

Fortunately fig seedlings fruit faster than most fruit trees, making the turn around time on a breeding project a bit faster. A tremendous amount of space will be needed as you may have to grow 10000 seedlings to get a few with your desired traits. Right off the bat only 2500 will be common out of those 10000.

 

[TorontoJoe]

Has nobody learned the dangers of making a copies from a copy?

 

[Inflorescence]

When it comes to breeding, I would ask what is the desired outcome? And are there varieties that already exist which serve those purposes. Or are new varieties needed?
What you want and what I want may be different. Is it for novelty or for commercial production. Maybe you are specifically breeding rootstock.

Just things to ponder.

Fortunately fig seedlings fruit faster than most fruit trees, making the turn around time on a breeding project a bit faster. A tremendous amount of space will be needed as you may have to grow 10000 seedlings to get a few with your desired traits. Right off the bat only 2500 will be common out of those 10000.

For sure. For myself, I want to get away from commercial varieties. Because they breed for storage and transportability, they can end up sacrificing the genes for flavor or even nutrition.

Don’t quote me on this because I’m going by memory, but there was a type of research study done I think around 2018 where people who grow in different ways, i.e. conventional, organic, biodynamic, regenerative, etc., submitted plant and soil samples to see if there was a difference in nutrients. And the results were all over the place. Of course, some of that could be explained by the fact that it was reliant on a bunch of different people to be honest and accurate with what they submitted, it wasn’t controlled. But what it showed was that the nutrients seemed to vary more by specific variety than by soil health or growing conditions.

So even if you have a plant that grows really well for you, if it isn’t getting the nutrients or the flavor, then what’s the point of eating it?

I think nature tells us that genetic variety is important. But that is kind of hard with figs being that comparatively few are both common and tasty.