Iâve never found Kent Whealy to make asinine statements like âhybrids are sterileâ or harmful to eat. My understanding is that he does feel that heirlooms are healthier, and I think that is because he believes selecting for hybrid vigor selects against nutritional value. In other words, we select most fruits based mostly on sugar content and yield, because they taste better and are easier to grow â but they loose the âbitterâ taste, which is associated with highly nutritious foods. The nutritionist sounds like sheâs Berkley educated, and has learned to drop names to try and support her outlandish statements. You canât win arguments with folk like this, they are fanatical and not open to reason.
Paquebot â Iâve got some questions. The first is about the history of hybridization. Now, I know that the bulk of commercial crops and most garden crops were hybridized after the process, based on the ânewlyâ found work of Gregor Mendel, was formalized in the mid-20âs. Tomatoes in particular were subjected to heavy hybridization, probably the 2nd most hybridized crop after corn. But, what about varieties like the Brandywine family, which dates back to the 1850âs â well before hybridization? Wouldnât any tomatoes selected from this or the other âancient lineâ OP families would by definition have innate disease resistance, not hybridized?
Also, Iâm curious what you know about the âtrueâ Grape Tomato (not the often confused Cherry tomatoes)? Is it not still pretty much the wild tomato plant? Great disease resistant, early fruit, and just barely more sweet tasting than Huckleberry Tomato. But with low yield, and a rather sour taste.
And I sure can grow a garden with absolutely ZERO hybrids in it. Easy as pie. Iâll plant garlic, shallots, Jerusalem artichoke, potatoes, rhubarb, alpine strawberry⦠Ok, I know what you are going to say. Even cloning plants are based originally on hybrids (except non-seeding plants like garlic). Well, that is somewhat true, but is also seems we are getting into âClintoneseâ to accept your definition that all plants are hybrid.
The common definition of hybridization is the âmechanical, sexual cross pollination of two dissimilar plants of the same species, for the express purpose of producing Hybrid Vigorâ. As you stated with your hybrid analogy, nearly all plants are hybrids, which is somewhat true. But your definition is closer to the âsexual cross pollination of two separate plants.â To use your definition, each one of us as a human being is actually a Hybrid Animal â as cross of two âseparateâ parents. While the accepted hybridization definition limits hybrid animals to creatures such as the Mule, or better yet, the cross of a Cocker Spaniel and a Poodle â the infamous Cockapoo.
Iâm not really trying to argue. It is just that your statements seem to be using a loose definition of accepted horticultural science, rather than the accepted tenants. I have trouble changing my own opinions without a good method of reasoning to back them up, and I am curious as to the what your opinions are based on?