I have COP that was grafted on M7 whips and their growth has been going very slow as well, I also cleft grafted COP on 10 year old M7 and M26 and both of them have shown incredible growth even to the point of producing fruit their second year. It seems that the trees development via its age makes a huge difference with the COP from my perspective.
1 Like
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of GMO and it relies on knee-jerk hysteric aversion to new technology. It also completely ignores a discussion of cis vs trans genetics and even a basic caveat discussion of mendelian genetics.
First of all, there has never been genetically modified rootstock that’s ever gone beyond the laboratory. Cis and transgenic are different. One is equal to a natural hand pollination breeding shortcut and one is not. Also there’s never been a need for it either method.
Second, this immediate poo poo of GMO is extremely short-sighted. You know the mRNA covid vaccines that basically more than half of the 75% of the world population took? That’s developed by genetic engineering. (The EU had to suspend their anti-GMO rules for covid vaccine development. Another reason why EU pharms were slow compared to their US counterparts.) People injected that. It wasn’t eaten food. Injected. Think about that. It’s in your blood.
The GMO corn doesn’t rewrite your DNA. Neither does the vaccine.
If you don’t like GMO, that’s fine and you want to support other breeding methods, that’s fine. You don’t need to justify your preferences with pseudoscience. Leave your science prejudices at the door.
1 Like
Somebody thinks it’s ok to just talk in public about one side of a matter.
2 Likes
My prejudice on GMO’s is they end research showing that GMO’s are dangerous.
They must be even more dangerous than we know, because the research is all cut off. I believe they are an existential threat to all plant life, and therefore not just humanity but all life on Earth.
There’s a reason none of those ever passed mustard to be in a peer review scientific journal. You’re just linking to news articles by reporters that are basically blogging about what they perceive to be some sort of concerted and organized cover up. I might as well find an all natural related new site discussing a conspiracy of perpetuating covid at the behest of big business.
This is really no different than those continuing to defend Didier Raoult, claiming some sort of organized deep state pharm, and his continued persecution to be a result thereof.
If you browse these forums consistently, then you will find the majority of the users here are posting references to genetic studies in peer reviewed journals. There are references to rootstock studies. Hybridization studies (genomic studies i.e. persimmons threads), long term grow outs. Cultivar genome comparisons (i.e. jujubes), etc… These are based on the basic premise of the scientific method that can be replicated. When results cannot be replicated, researchers rightly so take flak and get excommunicated by the scientific community. That does not equate to conspiracy.
We place value and stock in peer reviewed research, not simply anecdotal preference. It would be hypocritical to selectively pick and choose the science that fits your world view. We should be open to where science takes us. Science is meant to inform us and where we take that information is up to us. At the same time, a rational person doesn’t poo poo science and discount it suddenly when it butts up against a preconceived notion.
Second, the problem is you just blanket label GMO, because most people get squeamish about the term “genetically modified.” You’re not even differentiating cis- or trans-GMO, one of which provides the same outcome as genetic assortment via hand pollination.
Third, this squeamish ness with the term is actually well documented to be more psychological. Originally, the EU included traditional breeding and polyploidy introduction. This would mean that nearly every single artificially selected cultivar would be considered GMO. Also, anything that used colchicine for polyploidy would be included, which also includes a great many cultivars in just about every conceivable fruit and vegetable, since polyploidy has been used at one time or another and often backcrossed as parental strands. It was only petitioning by the scientific community that has brought in exclusions in the definition.
If you’re uncomfortable with GMO, that is fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. There just no science that supports what you’re claiming.
That wasn’t me flagging someone’s post. I’m happy to life and let live, plus I am pretty sure I don’t even have the powers to do so. There are plenty of threads where others have argued more vehemently and used more direct pejoratives in my direction and I don’t mind.
Some of most active people on this forum (moderators included) are from the medical, scientific, and technology community. I am assuming the person making a post suggesting covid vaccines rewriting DNA would not be considered apropo.