Scott our crop was light this year due to the cold temperatures last winter. I grow flat wonderful, reliance, and contender. Reliance performs the best overall on our farm. We have some problems with mummified fruit (about 1%) and what looks like brown rot of the fruit (about 10%). I spray with both captan and immunox as directed and pick off mummies and scour the ground for windfalls and dispose of them . Is there a fungicide you feel would work better for peaches? I have heard some people in my area speak of black rot carried by wild fruits that affects anything from grapes to apples or even peaches. Is there a variety I could grow that would improve the type of peaches I grow in 5b or offers better disease resistance?

Mrs. G, Arboreum also gets their scions from Prusch Park, Todd (Arboretum owner) is a major force in maintaining that collection. So I am pretty sure I have the same EC that you do. Unless there was a mix-up somewhere.

Clark, Immunox is not a great fungicide from brown rot. Use Monterey Fungi Fighter.

Scott

Oh Scott this is horrible. I wrote to Arboreum to see if this is true. I now have two seedling peaches in my orchard that I did not expect. They make great jam but I want good fresh eating peaches. If this is true I am so disappointed. :( Mrs. G

Thanks Scott I really appreciate the suggestion of Monterey Fungi-Fighter. I think it will make a world of difference and I had never heard of it.

Here is a link that might be useful: Monterey Fungi-Fighter

This post was edited by ClarkinKS on Fri, Oct 31, 14 at 18:29

Scott where did Winblo rank this year?

Appleseed, my old Winblo got bad borers so I grafted a new tree this spring. It may be a few years before I get fruits on it.

Mrs G, I'm not really sure my EC is a seedling, just that it seems on the small/soft side like seedlings. Its still great eating. Of these very old peaches it is likely that many were seed-propagated at some point, as the older varieties are more likely to come true to seed. They also come from a time when seed propagation of peaches was common.

Scott

"as the older varieties are more likely to come true to seed."

Scott, I always assumed that the ability of fruit to come true to seed is mostly about being self fertile. I can see the logic of selective choosing of strains more prone to this trait by growers in the old days, but is this more than a logical leap on your part? If it is, where does the info come from- personal experience or what? I have almost no experience at growing peaches from seed so I'm curious.

Scott I went back to my books, as I have been collecting all of the old 'books of new york' fruit series. All of the old peaches were seedling peaches, then crossed. Mrs. G

Hman, nearly all of this information came from the old books Mrs G refers to. The intro to Peaches of NY describes how grafting of peaches was pretty much non-existent in the US until the early 1800s when grafting started to be more common. So, before then the "varieties" were largely seed propagated just like tomatoes still are. Continued seed propagation via self pollination over generations eliminates the gene differences so they are ever more likely to come true to seed with each successive generation. Even after there were grafted varieties seed propagation was common, and it is still is practiced in some rural pockets of the US.

Scott

Scott, I'm not too well versed in genetics, but I don't see how multiple generations would necessarily reduce variation unless the growers eliminated trees just because they were different and not because they produced peaches of lesser quality.

I would think that the peaches would gradually change to improved strains as farmers selected them for improvement- but I guess that's just one way of looking at it. You are talking about the reality, I take it, and you make a good point with heirloom tomatoes although it would be hard to prove that they didn't change over the years unless you had really good illustrated records. Whose to say that what they called a purple brandywine in 1850 was nearly a duplicate of the tomato they call that today.

Thanks for answering my question. Some things to think about.

Harvestman I don't understand what your "not understanding" about what Scott is saying. Maybe I'm missing your point. Repeated mass plantings from seed will "purify" the strain or variety. I did have one course in genetics in college and it was the best class I've ever taken. Having said that, that was a long time ago, so I'll take a crack at 'splainin' it. You can fact check me afterwards as I'm sure you will.
A review of the Punnett square (the long version) would clear up what would happen with repeated plantings of peaches grown from seed in a mass planting.

I think you are thinking about things like alterations made by the nurserymen culling out those with less desirable characteristics or selecting those that exhibited superior traits. No doubt some of that occurred and in some ways it is intergral in this process.
I think you might also be thinking a bit in terms of natural evolution. If you are, don't, because that would take eons.
I think what Scott is getting at is that each tree would have somewhat differing DNA even though the seed "variety" is the same. The difference would be attributed to recessive alleles in some cases not being expressed and in other cases where it is (at a 4-1 ratio). If you review then a Punnett square you can see then that after even a single generation, some of these recessive alleles would simply "breed out" due to the dominant gene commanding it's expression. When that happened there would be less pollen (even in a self-fruitful stand) that contained the recessive gene, thereby offering even less chance for it's expression (especially since the "receiver" likely no longer has the recessive gene either).
There would however be rarer times when those recessive genes (think little t - little t) or ( t t ) would be expressed. That marker could be for some form of disease resistance and that would be culled (as you alluded to) by natural selection or the nurseryman's axe. This couldn't happen overnight (or in a orchard generation) because of the randomized Tt. TT, tT. and tt occurring in many trees. BUT it WOULD be occurring and due to the short lived nature of peach trees it would be occurring at a fairly rapid pace.

One thing I should correct myself on. A dominant gene would likely be something that aides in the plants survival and not necessarily something we want in a peach tree. A dominant gene may trigger more smaller fruit rather than fewer larger fruit for example. I don't know if that's a true example I'm just using it for illustrative purposes.

When thought of in the bigger picture then it is fairly easy to see where variation would be reduced to the point of near total elimation of variation. Kind of like the repeated smelting and refining of precious metals. The more it happens the purer it gets.

I'm certainly no genetics expert although I find the field fascinating. I also have poor communication skills and after rereading this post I don't think I was very clear. Also, I'm remembering just how little I remember about all this.

If you think in human terms inbreeding reduces genetic variation and the risk of a recessive allele like those expressed as polydwarfism. Down's syndrome. albinism etc. In the orchard world these "children" would simply be culled or they would die of natural causes as is often the case. Nevertheless. those that were fortunate enough to not have any recessive (or mostly) genes exhibited would then become vastly more genetically similar to ultimately the point of being identical (though that may be in the real world scientifically impossible).
The "children" then in this scenario who were fortunate would after repeated generations begin to exhibit traits just like their parents Black hair, brown eyes. medium build, fair skin etc.
Extrapolate that to peaches and you get peaches more similar in characteristics to that of their originally selected "parents" with less randomized gene construction and less (or no) recessive gene expression.

Wow...hope my old professor don't find this post cuz I'm sure he could pick this apart something terrible...lol

I'm aware there is a lot more to it than this simplified explanation but I think this is the "meat" of it all.

This post was edited by Appleseed70 on Sat, Nov 1, 14 at 23:29

Appleseed you've made it crystal clear. Thank you so much! I haven't read the word 'allele' since I took Zoology. Mrs. G

In other words if you inbreed those mutts running around you can turn them into purebred pooches that all look the same. Is that a close analogy?

Always amazes me you can sell inbreds for big bucks by calling them purebreds.

Appleseed you've made it crystal clear. Thank you so much! I haven't read the word 'allele' since I took Zoology. Mrs. G

Wow...really? Or are you just being nice...lol?

MrsG someone posted a link a few months ago about some German geneticists/breeders who warned of the dangers of inbreeding the worlds apples so much. It may have even been you who posted it.
I think what they were getting at was kinda similar to this in the sense that some genes (that may in the future prove valuable) could be simply bred away.
Also the unique genetic similiarities in modern apples at specific markers could prove dangerous should a disease develop that targets them or maybe even an insect mutation. Seemed as though everything had red delicious or golden delicious in it's parentage. Brothers and sisters can only breed so long before eventually there is a price to pay.
I think they had other ideas too which I don't remember or simply wasn't smart enough to understand in the first place. Smart those Germans are.

In other words if you inbreed those mutts running around you can turn them into purebred pooches that all look the same. Is that a close analogy?
Always amazes me you can sell inbreds for big bucks by calling them purebreds.

Well...yes...and no. Dogs are different in the fact that they are able to roam about and mate with whomever. There is also the issue that those who displayed traits unlike their parents be culled. Also, many dogs live longer than a peach tree may stay in commercial production if you include those that die by the axe or by the storm.

All those things accounted for though then yes it would work that way (at least I think so). Domesticated dogs became wildly differentiated due to human intervention via radical cross-breeding or hybridization. Now, many breeds are not even sexually compatible just like some fruits. Just like Hyenas or jackals or dingos who do all look generally the same and have similar traits and behaviors. It might take a lot longer though because no dog I'm aware of is capable of self-fertilization. Not a deal killer though, it will just take centuries longer.
I wonder if it's possible triploids became sterile in the same or similar way that a liger did?

The pear and the apple were once the same and were sexually compatible with the Asian pear serving as the proof of an evolutionary bridge. Possibly these are some of the reasons winter banana can serve as an interstem and why quince can graft to pear, but not apple etc etc etc.

This post was edited by Appleseed70 on Sun, Nov 2, 14 at 0:27

Appleseed, I was talking about the likely event that most every single grower would invariably pick seeds from fruit of the most superior trees in their orchard both to improve the quality of fruit and to expand their harvest season, not natural selection, of course.

They would encourage any trait, dominant or not, that improved the quality of the fruit- therefore pushing against any dominant trait that didn't lead to superior fruit.

I also doubt that peach trees were ever placed in a situation where they weren't exposed to other pollen from various varieties. What commercial grower (or any serious grower at all) of any era would want peaches that all bear in a 2 week window? They'd go broke. The idea of a single variety being protected form cross pollination seems ludicrous to me. Honey bees can travel for miles.

Your explanation doesn't at all explain to me how these things wouldn't lead to ever changing varieties in the context of actual orchard conditions, but then, I never went beyond botany 2 in hort school. I do, however, have at least an average grasp of logic (I guess all people believe they do and don't like to be challenged on this point).

I'm told modern purveyors of heirloom vegetable seeds go to great length to avoid cross pollination from different strains. This would have been necessary in 19th century Kansas to maintain purity of peach varieties as well.

In corn, saving seed of non-hybridized varieties produces a more consistent offspring, than saving seed of hybridized varieties.

This wouldn't necessarily apply to peaches because peaches aren't really hybridized. Nevertheless the older non-hybridized corn varieties were more stable than newer hybrids, despite that corn is wind pollinated. Don't ask me how old varieties of corn can maintain their unique characteristics when there are fields of other varieties planted right next to them.

There is a new peach developed by WSU and USDA called Trugold. It is supposed to be stable enough to be propagated by seed. Supposedly no need for grafting to propagate this peach.

This post was edited by olpea on Sun, Nov 2, 14 at 10:06

But is the peach supposed to maintain its traits even when in the vicinity of other varieties or is the point of this variety that a careful seed producer can offer useful seed at a fraction of the cost of shipping trees? Need to know that before I can fit it into the discussion at hand.

Harvestman:
You are over-complicating things. To start with, of course nurserymen selected seed from the best fruit, we all know that. In the conversation here, that was ALREADY done as Scott mentioned.
Is it possible pollen from outside the stand could "invade"? Of course it is and that undoubtedly happened but to a exponentially lesser degree than is likely from tree right next to it, or in the case of peaches, it's very own pollen. Once fertilized...it's done. Nothing you are saying counters the fact that seed becomes purified as Scott mentioned.
If pollen routinely and pervasively traveled the way you suggest, none of us would ever need to plant pollenizers for anything....ever. It would also eliminate the fact that peaches often come relatively true from seed. We know that neither of these things are true.
No doubt the genetic waters would on occasion become "polluted" so to speak, as foreign pollen entered the stand from outside sources, but again, referring to the Punnett square we can see that this too would get bred out eventually in long term stands over long periods like is described in the book Scott mentioned.
A selected variety that had preferable traits that was able to come into existence (like the one originally selected for planting) ALREADY had dominant genes for most (certainly not all) of the preferable traits. Again...in the event that foreign genes influenced the offspring in a negative way it was culled (artificially or naturally). The likelihood of it influencing it in a positive way is far less likely because that possibility would have already existed before the original seedling was ever selected for it's positive attributes in the first place. It IS possible though, and if positive enough would be a new variety or an improved version of the original. This is why continual refinement of the original variety takes place.
REMEMBER...the original seed that produced the target tree had already been exposed to foreign pollen for perhaps centuries, so it was already refined somewhat (probably a lot actually) to begin with.
It gets purer period...just like is mentioned in Scott's book and for the same reason Olpea mentioned with the non-hybridized corn.
So you don't believe this can happen, but there is two cases where it HAS happened. It happened for the reason I've tried (rather poorly) to explain. Yes, it's not exactly as simple as I defined as there is a lot going on here, but again...that's the "meat" of the thing.

Hman, most of the "backyard" tomato seed savers today don't bag their blossoms. 95+% of the time you get a self-pollinated seed anyway. I think peaches are similar. The commercial companies that sell heirloom seeds may bag blossoms, but not backyard seed savers.

Scott

ok...I just thought of maybe a better way to explain my position more simply.
Scott's book indicated seed become "more true" and Olpea mentioned the corn seed doing the same.

I've referred to seed becoming more true as "refinement" because that's really what it is.
Dominant genes express themselves at a 4-1 ratio let's just say 75% of the time. Therefore 25% of the time they do not, in those cases the recessive gene is expressed. On the next go-round though, the recessive genes likelihood of expression becomes even less. And so on and so forth until eventually your Punnett square is Dominant-Dominant or TT. Once it becomes TT for a specific marker it is king and cannot be unseated (at least in the elementary version). The original seedling already had been refined through years of selection Harvestman...just like you pointed out. So...it's mixture of DNA already comprised TT markers for a number of the traits that mattered to the grower. Further planting of this seed ( that creates a self fertile tree ) then can only ultimately become refined. Planting en masse in large stands simply accelerates this refinement due to preventing (to some degree) foreign pollen invasion. Ultimately though it doesn't matter too much because it has so many TT markers it becomes increasingly difficult to influence.
Again, I keep saying this because it needs to be said, THIS is only the very basic Chapter #1 7th grade science class version. I am fully aware there is a ton more to it than this and I'm undoubtedly incorrect in at least a few assertions. This is WHY it works though.

Appleseed, I did mean it, got it! Thanks, Mrs. G

Appleseed, your assumptions start from established facts but end as logical leaps, IMO. Cross pollination is extremely pervasive or non self fruitful varieties would need another variety right next to it to be productive.

If growers were consistently using seeds from their "best" trees you can't know which traits they might be accentuating from what varieties. It creates an unknowable equation, IMO. Pollen from other and not same varieties would most likely bring the DNA that produced these improvements the growers selected for. Only if they stopped selecting for improvements would this transformation stop.

Peaches don't really have the range of qualities of most other fruit, that is why they are usually sold only as white or yellow peaches instead of by actual name. In other words, differences between cultivars tend to be subtle.

I don't even feel it's necessarily logical to accept the anecdotal observations of extension agents of the 1900's to actually be accurate over a range of years identifying the stability of seedling cultivars. One would have to make extremely careful measurements as it would be impossible to notice subtle changes season to season.

Qualities vary as much from year to year from the affects of weather as DNA from my experience. Qualities of same varieties also vary from soil to soil and site to site a great deal even on the same season.

You can finish up if you want. I don't think I will respond even if I have some disagreement again. You've made some very good points which I recognize and appreciate. Wish you could say the same of mine, but maybe mine aren't as valid. I don't know.

Hman, most of the "backyard" tomato seed savers today don't bag their blossoms. 95+% of the time you get a self-pollinated seed anyway. I think peaches are similar. The commercial companies that sell heirloom seeds may bag blossoms, but not backyard seed savers.
Scott

EXACTLY. Boy I wish I could condense things like this. It's just that even if foreign pollen invaded it is difficult to unseat many markers because the females is likely (not always) dominant already, and has produced an attractive quality for the grower (which is why it exists to begin with).

Appleseed, your assumptions start from established facts but end as logical leaps, IMO. Cross pollination is extremely pervasive or non self fruitful varieties would need another variety right next to it to be productive.

Yes and that is often times the case and not just with peaches either. Come on Harvestman...you know this. I didn't say it couldn't happen either, in fact, I agreed it could and likely does.

If growers were consistently using seeds from their "best" trees you can't know which traits they might be accentuating from what varieties. It creates an unknowable equation, IMO.

No, in fact it creates a mostly knowable equation in our discussion. Entirely known...No...mostly known...yes. This is true however only in the context of the original discussion...you are deviating here.

Pollen from other and not same varieties would most likely bring the DNA that produced these improvements the growers selected for.

This is not necessarily true. A lot of the things they "selected for" will hold the same dominant marker (not all things though). Again, you are assuming that only outside pollinators are successful. I'm lost as to why you keep doing that.

Only if they stopped selecting for improvements would this transformation stop.

Again, in the context of our discussion this is absolutely what has happened and not only that, but improvements could only come from outside pollinators that were successful and had a dominant gene for a preferred trait. Although possible, it is increasingly unlikely for the reasons I've attempted to detail over and over.

Peaches don't really have the range of qualities of most other fruit, that is why they are usually sold only as white or yellow peaches instead of by actual name. In other words, differences between cultivars tend to be subtle.

Of course, because the preferred trait dominant genes were mostly already expressed in the seedlings before they began being clonally propagated. This only reinforces what I'm attempting to get across.

I don't even feel it's necessarily logical to accept the anecdotal observations of extension agents of the 1900's to actually be accurate over a range of years identifying the stability of seedling cultivars.

It's not just anecdotal harvestman. The anecdotal evidence just reinforces the science behind it. To argue the evidence is what is illogical. The "stability" of the cultivars only persists in the closed confines of the original discussion. Moved outside of that they will begin to express on occasion recessive alleles in their progeny. Punnett square harvestman.

One would have to make extremely careful measurements as it would be impossible to notice subtle changes season to season.

Not really, but if it makes you feel better...ok.

Qualities vary as much from year to year from the affects of weather as DNA from my experience. Qualities of same varieties also vary from soil to soil and site to site a great deal even on the same season.

You are now getting WAY off topic and way off track here.

You can finish up if you want. I don't think I will respond even if I have some disagreement again. You've made some very good points which I recognize and appreciate. Wish you could say the same of mine, but maybe mine aren't as valid. I don't know.

You have made good points harvestman, you always do without fail. Also as I've said many times before there is more at play here than we've discussed. That's likely because none of know enough to get beyond this point. At least I know I don't. Hell for that matter I'm struggling here with the kiddie stuff. When I get confused I just keep thinking about the square and big T big T etc

Appleseed, you know, I really can't maintain what I consider a logical discussion with you, which is unusual for me when dealing with folks of your obvious intelligence. I could go after everything you say here point by point and we'd just go round and round. I will not waste our time in the future on relatively abstract discussions. We seem to lack the right chemistry for it.

The statement "not really, but if it makes you feel better...ok" kind of says it all for me. This seems to be only about winning something. I believe the fault lies with you there and I expect you believe the fault lies with me.

Scott, my pepper and tomato heirlooms are not reliably true to seed at all unless I do a careful job of isolating plants, but I take your point. I can see how growers may have kept varieties apart and tried to sustain traits of varieties to make sure the various varieties provided a staggered harvest of quality peaches.

By my thinking, this is probably the root of any stability that existed and the genetics of it are only a part of the story in that it gave the farmers the opportunity to steer the trees towards stability. The effort was logically all about having several high quality varieties that could be counted on bearing at a specific window so the harvest window was open throughout the season.

It took both the relative natural genetic stability of peaches and careful steering by the farmers, I suspect, and was no accident of nature.

I needed to think it through like a farmer to really have a picture that works for me.

One reason it was hard for me to fathom at first is that seedling peaches are considered more hardy than grafted, and if isolated seedling trees are reliably true, why hasn't this been used more for the development of cold hardy peaches? This question still nags at me a bit.

Seems like if you isolated Reliant for a few generations you could grow them by seed without the expense of cutting off a yearling tree for a bud graft and sell trees with a year less in the ground that are more hardy than a grafted scion tree. Better tree for less money.

From what I have read, with say tomatoes, is the self fruitful tomato pollinated the flower before it even opens. If you wish to cross breed, you need to emasculate before the flower opens, as at that point, the deed is done. Hence no need to bag flowers.
Back to peaches to throw something in the mix. Indian Free, described by Thomas Jefferson, grown by him. maybe one of the first grafted types as the cultivar is not self fertile.

Ok, got my answer from Arboreum and here it is! NO my EARLY CRAWFORD is not a seedling peach!

"Not. So. Early Crawford is clonally propagated from ancient source. Not clear where this whisper campaign begun. Surely not you! But is propagated on a seedling rootstock. Called Lovell.

Now lets discuss cloning! Mrs. G

Seems like if you isolated Reliant for a few generations you could grow them by seed without the expense of cutting off a yearling tree for a bud graft and sell trees with a year less in the ground that are more hardy than a grafted scion tree. Better tree for less money.

I think you could too Harvestman. I don't think anyone would be interested though because the monetary investment required plus the fact that it would take a lifetime to do it.
When ready for sale...who would buy them? They would take longer to grow and come into bearing. How could a potential customer be assured they weren't just some peach pit left over from canning operations. There would also always be that chance that the customer would get the "uh-oh" seed that had the bad genetics

There are however people doing exactly as you say Harvestman...lots of them actually. I wouldn't trust it one bit though. For just $12 you can get 5 seeds of the world's largest peach. Here's a random link:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/KING-OF-PEACHES-WORLDS-LARGEST-PEACH-GIANT-BUDDHA-5-seeds-RARE-TREE-1296-/181281442955?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0amp;hash=item2a35374c8b

On a similar yet different note: Has anyone else seen listings on ebay for Honeycrisp seeds or Pink Lady seeds etc? There are a lot of them...lol
Thing is, they aren't technically misrepresenting what they are either. Still, pretty unethical; that is assuming the seller is aware that they will not produce said tree. They have large colorful photos of trees just loaded with beautiful apples too. Funny stuff.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-tree-9-differernt-varieties-10-50-100-500-1000-seeds-choice-listing-/390705141348?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0amp;var=&hash=item5af7d75664

This post was edited by Appleseed70 on Mon, Nov 3, 14 at 14:25

I have an Indian Free tree, not self fruitful. I have Arctic Glo, PF lucky 13, Spice Zee Nectaplum to pollinate. I'm certainly going to grow a few from seeds for fun. IMHO any of these as pollen donor would make excellent offspring, if not, I'll graft unto it. Arctic Glo is the closest and I would prefer a red fleshed nectarine.

When you graft a peach you are making a clone of the original plant. That plant may have several "Tt" genes that actually produced a better plant. In that case only 50% would breed true for that one gene. You would never be able to stabilize the gene pool since you would need one of each for that gene. That is why we have hybrid plants. One parent has either 2 dominate or 2 recessive traits for the gene

Also, to sell pure seed, most crops have a distance that must be maintained. (such as 1/2 to 1 mile) from other varieties. Even then there is some contamination.

That being said, Just Fruits and Exotics does sell a Roddenberry Heirloom White peach that they say comes true from seed.

Mrs G, I still believe that we have the same peach and it is a seedling (of many years ago I expect). I should probably email Todd myself about it. In general one is never completely certain about these old variety IDs, I expect 10% or more of them are incorrect. Oldmixon Free is another one I am somewhat doubtful of, the modern peach of that name is huge by old standards of size and the old one has nothing about being huge in any description. Its still a great peach wherever it came from.

Scott

If trees are seedlings, even peach trees, they are not technically legally or scientifically the same variety, are they? Although, I can see how a good amount of stability could be maintained by farmers of peach seedlings (I would expect, as I already suggested, that it would require both selecting for same quality of fruit and same window of ripening) there would inevitably be a certain amount of varietal drift. It even happens with clonal varieties over time as I understand it. Can't sports have only small variations from the mother DNA that a grower would ignore when selecting graft wood?

But maybe I should stop submitting my opinions about genetics- I'm only doing it as a therapeutic brain exercise in deductive reasoning anyway. Trying to keep those brain cells regenerating.

If trees are seedlings, even peach trees, they are not technically legally or scientifically the same variety, are they? Although, I can see how a good amount of stability could be maintained by farmers of peach seedlings (I would expect, as I already suggested, that it would require both selecting for same quality of fruit and same window of ripening) there would inevitably be a certain amount of varietal drift. It even happens with clonal varieties over time as I understand it. Can't sports have only small variations from the mother DNA that a grower would ignore when selecting graft wood?

I agree with everything you say here. The two questions posed I have no answers for. Good questions.
My gut would say seedlings could be sold as a "variety" legally at least, since the practice has previously been established. Scientifically I would guess it would have to be genetically 100% accurate, but as you pointed out, who's to say a sport limb didn't get scion wood mixed into the fold? I've often wondered about slight genetic diversity among named cultivars even those in clonal propagation.

Thanks, Appleseed. By the way, I e-mailed Gowan about the shelf life of Imidan today. I will let you know what they say.

" I've often wondered about slight genetic diversity among named cultivars even those in clonal propagation."

Me too. I've read there are several strains of Redhaven. Interestingly I've also read seeds from Redhaven will frequently produce a "Compact Redhaven". The Compact Redhaven of years past was a seedling of Redhaven.

Re: Trugold peach

I read in some of the release comments that Trugold is a haploid, which as I understand, would offer a lot more genetic stability vs. a diploid (which is the general chromosomal condition of peaches).

I've been told by someone who knows a lot more about genetics than me that the Trugold peach would need to be kept "a safe pollen distance" from other cultivars to remain true to type, as Hman surmised earlier.

This is unfortunate in my opinion because I suspect few nurseries would go to the necessary effort of segregating this particular peach variety (All photos I've seen of fruit tree nurseries show rows and rows of peaches.) I suspect those getting Trugold peach from seed propagation may not be getting the real deal.

One thing which might make a difference is if a diploid peach can't pollinate a haploid (I forgot to ask about that. Can anyone offer any further insight on this?) If Trugold can't be pollinated by other peaches, then of course there would be no genetic transfer from other peach cultivars, regardless of how close they were planted.

Scott-

What was the source of your Oldmixon Free? You have one called Oldmixon Free Improved too, yes? Which has performed better for you? Where did you source them? Albemarle Ciderworks/ VintageVaApples? Somewhere else? Thanks,

-Matt

Clonal variations are widespread on the really old varieties. Its probably a contributor as to why some people like a variety and others don't. Hoople's Antique Gold is a sport of Golden Delicious, but its a pretty big stretch to imagine that. This was the intentional propagation of a sport, but it surely happens by random accident (or intended but undocumented) if a variety has been passed on enough times.

Matt, I have grown out three different Oldmixon Free peaches. One is a tree I got from VVA which they told me came from Peter Hatch and he told me he got it from Southmeadow. I have another called Oldmixon Free Improved which came from CRFG. It is almost identical but ripens a week or so earlier and the fruits seem a touch smaller. My guess is it is a seedling? The third one .. hmm I can't remember where I got it from now but it was a swap with someone. Its just like the VVA one. One reason why I grew out three of them is I have heard mixed information on whether the VVA/Southmeadow one is original.

Scott

Doesn't Southmeadow have a pretty bad rep as far as truetolabilism anyway? Coined a new word for the purpose.

What variety is that? It's a notolabel. My nursery has the largest selection of notolabel trees on the planet. That would not be an easy thing to accomplish. The competition is fierce.

Years ago Southmeadow was fine. It was when the original owner put someone else in charge that things went downhill. They are supposedly back doing OK again, but I certainly am not going to test that after all my $$ they swallowed (including $$ for an Oldmixon Free tree that never showed).

Scott

Yeah...reading over those negatives on the scoop...geesh, that's about as bad as it gets. Supposedly an unscrupulous office manager? I dunno...I'm not sold on how a good businessman or woman who was conscientious could be so disconnected as to allow things to spiral out of control like that. I for one am not interested in doing any business with them.
Damn...that's awful.

I ordered from them almost 25 years ago when the old man was alive. He was an obsessive, wondrous gardener/nurseryman and someone I was happy to do business with, but even then I seem to recall their being some who questioned the reliability of his insanely huge inventory. Truetolabelly challenged.

Dear Mrs G,

We suppose that some clarification is in order before these suburban legends ripen into received truths. Particularly to correct the order of causation. We received the Early Crawford in the early 1980s, if memory serves, from the former experiment station at Prosser WA, which is no longer. Our principal gnome started the scion exchanges of the CRFG organization in 1983/4, and Early Crawford was one of the original varieties he made available then and in subsequent years. It has disseminated (actually, disscionated) from there and has been propagated by many. Our gnome also was the person who gathered together from our orchard the propagating material for the heritage orchard planted at Emma Prusch Memorial Farm Park of the City of San Jose, which was intended to preserve the fruit varieties of the Santa Clara Valley. This was ca. 1996. A tree of Early Crawford was propagated, but was not planted at Prusch Park, instead ended up in the orchard at Filoli, a property of National Trust for Historic Preservation. This because City of San Jose reduced the space available for trees.

So no Early Crawford could ever have come from Prusch Park. Our gnome has not been involved in the scion exchanges since 1999, and cannot answer for trueness to type of any Early Crawford except those issuing from The Arboreum Company or the USDA National Clonal Germplasm Repository (GRIN), which was propagated from ours. The Arboreum Company certainly does not gather propagating material for our use from the Prusch Park orchard and Crawford material at any scion exchange does not come from Prusch Park. We do know that scions at the various exchanges are handled very promiscuously and come from various sources, are spread out on tables and grabbed up again to be rebagged and sent on to other exchanges. Obviously we do not rely upon such sources.

We received some 20 years ago material purporting to be Oldmixon Free and it was planted (on probation) at Prusch Park. Upon fruiting, we considered it more likely the 'Oldmixon Free Improved' found in Stark Bro's catalogs of the 1920s, for the reasons stated by Scott Smith. And so it was labelled in the Prusch orchard. From there it has travelled the route of scion exchanges and may have shed its qualifier "improved" from time to time. Our friend Charlotte Shelton has many times promised us a tree of Tom Burford's Oldmixon for comparison, but it hasn't happened yet.

The gnomes at The Arboreum Company

Mrs. G...thank you for posting that. That gives me a lot of insight into how all this functions. It is so cool to see that these folks essentially dismissed because it was felt it was too good to be the original and likely the "improved" variety offered by Starks in the 1920's.
This is too much for me to wrap my head around as there had to be at least a dozen generations since the the 1920's.
Mrs.G..please tell me more about this Arboreum as I'm extremely interested.

Hmm, it looks like I really should have emailed Todd directly instead of putting you as a proxy, Mrs G. I think what I said above was largely correct in light of Todd's remarks, except I got Prusch Park and Fioli mixed up; they are pretty much identical from my view on the other side of the country. Todd does raise a point there is always a chance of a mixup at scion exchanges; I have found about a 5% mistake rate from CRFG exchanges. Maybe we can do a scion trade this winter so I can put your version on my tree.

Scott

PS I looked up the old Oldmixon Free Improved description, see e.g. this link. It looks like it is supposed to similar to but larger than the original. Thats the opposite of what I am seeing, my "Improved" is smaller than my non-Improved.

This post was edited by scottfsmith on Fri, Nov 7, 14 at 21:55

Appleseed, the site for Arboreum is simply, Arboreum.company@gmail.com Or, google them. Their trees are magnificent and they have the best root systems in the marketplace. There are few major mail order houses from which I have not ordered. Arboreum really knows their stuff and they are not only honest, they are researchers and leaders in the world of mail order fruit trees. I always stand by, 'you get what you pay for'. Yes, certain trees from Arboreum might be a bit more expensive, but you will not get a better tree anywhere else. Email should you have any questions. They are an excellent nursery. Scott, I have really appreciated all of your help, but this time you're just not correct. I am no proxy, I took this upon myself, because, Arboreum is an excellent, honest company. Mrs. G

Mrs G, I suggest that you follow my link and look at the peach section of the 1915 book/catalog there. You will see that they don't even list Early and Late Crawford directly, they only list seedlings ("Improved" versions are all seedlings). They are also selling seed-grown trees of some varieties. This is more evidence why I think the chance that todays Early Crawford was not seed propagated somewhere along the way is small. My main question is if it didn't lose some size along the way.

I never said or intended to imply that Arboreum is dishonest, and I agree they are an excellent company. Todd is the foremost authority on old peach varieties in the US. But, I still believe that strain of Early Crawford to have been seed propagated at some point, to a version with smaller size.

I would also appreciate that you ask Todd to make an account and reply directly here rather than continuing a proxy debate.

Scott

Scott, Todd is someone you seem to know. Why don't you ask him. I also never used the word 'dishonest' about your comments. I used the word honest in my comments, i.e. they report accurately. Mrs. G

Mrs G, I don't know him directly. I also haven't had much luck getting replies to my emails. I've learned more from your forwards than I ever got from him directly. The info on the Oldmixon in particular is interesting; I now think all of the Oldmixons today are an "Improved" version (since the VVA one is even bigger for me than the "Improved" one in circulation today) -- Todd nailed that one.

Scott