123- Organic peaches, really?

ORGANIC PEACHES, REALLY?

The peach, it's been a long time since I fell into it. This is in my opinion, among crops I know, one of the most difficult and the most technically interesting. No mechanization is possible, or almost, everything is still craft and manual, even on a large scale. It's one of the last "social" crops in industrialized countries, that is to say that generates a large number of jobs for non-specialized people.

Personal picture

If you follow my blog for a long time, you know that I am not an advocate of organic, because I totally oppose the marketing line on which it's based for more than 30 years. Organic production has many qualities, but also some defects, some of them serious. Yet, all marketing is done, not on the basis of a valuation of organic, but on the basis of attacks against non-organic. The fear of poisoning is branded as a weapon of mass destruction, without looking at the collateral damage, everyday more numerous and serious. But there is no justification for that, quite the contrary. Look at cases of food-borne mortalities in the last quarter of a century. The only serious cases systematically involve food produced in organic (E.coli on sprouted seeds, salmonellosis on melon, botulism, etc.). No similar cases demonstrated exist on conventional foods.

Should we ban organic? Of course not. But it must be controlled at least as well as the conventional, which is not currently the case. The new European regulation goes in this direction, fortunately (http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2017/11/119-reforming-organic-is-not-so-natural.html).

You also know that, without doing organic production, I don't criticize organic farmers, and I often write about ecological or agroecological problems.

In fact, I am often asked why I don't do organic farming.

And that's exactly what I want to talk about today.

I don't own the land I grow. I manage the production for a private company. As such, I don't always have my hands free.

Yet, I know that, commercially speaking, it would be interesting to do organic.

But I don't do it.

Today, it's practically impossible to produce organic peach.

A clarification for those who don't know it: when I talk about peach, I'm talking about all subspecies or denominations that are included in the species Peach Prunus persica, ie peach, nectarine, (hard-flesh peaches for canning), flat peach (paraguayo), platerine (flat nectarine), as well as white, yellow or blood flesh. It's the same species, it's almost impossible to distinguish the tree from one subspecies or another and cultivation conditions are the same.

Picture: http://legacy.justrivals.com/s3/justrivals-webassets/rivalries/peaches-vs-nectarines-17534.jpg

I told you that organic is almost impossible for peach. Let's clear that. I can have three peach trees in my garden, no spray them and eat peaches all the same.

There, I ask a question to those who have some peach in their garden and who eat the peaches with the more pleasure they come from their garden. These few peaches, as they are when you pick them, would you buy them in a store?

The answer will be no for most, as these fruits are usually deformed, stung, stained, small and ugly. However, fruits as damaged, even organic, are not able to be sold (http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2017/08/112-quality-5-when-organic-gets-going.html).

The peach tree is highly susceptible to an important number of diseases and pests, capable of almost completely destroying the crop.

In natural conditions, tree produces small fruits and few. But the variety selection carried out for several centuries has sorted the characters of size, aesthetics and flavor, in general without combining them with criteria of rusticity (which is frequently the case for most plant species). In the cultivated peach, we don't find old rustic varieties, known locally but with characteristics not adapted to market needs, as is the case, for example with apple tree or plum tree, and which could serve as a natural genetic source of resistance.

Research or experimentation centers specialized in organic farming, very aware of the problem that everyone faces for the serious development of organic fishing, are reduced to empirically test the behavior of ancient or modern varieties. (Http://www.grab.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/A12RA02SensibiliteVarietalePechers.pdf).

It is an extremely long and expensive process, which gives very poor results.

And the production of organic peaches does not take off. There are some crazy people to do a little, but always on a very small scale, for a short and confidential market, and with immense economic risks.

Since the takeoff of organic and the explosion of consumer concern for health and environment, botanists around the world have not had all the freedom to go prospecting in origin regions of peach tree, China and Persia, and more specifically Iran and Afghanistan, plagued by political tension and incessant conflicts for 40 years. There are "forests" of wild fruit trees, from natural chance crossings and centuries of adaptation, and there is therefore a huge genetic diversity. These surveys, usual in botany, allow a real work of genetic improvement within the same species, without the need to look for genes in different plant species.

I don't doubt that the day will come when scientists will have developed varieties really resistant to these diseases and pests currently very dangerous.

Picture: https://jameskennedymonash.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/artificial-natural-peach2.png

But in the current genetic situation, peach remains a globally non-culturable species in organic. I'm not saying that you are not going to find a small organic peach grower, in a village market, who sales some organic peaches from his meager production.

But if on the contrary you find beautiful peaches, big and in quantities, then beware.

They may be free of pesticide residues. But making a fruit without measurable residues of synthetic pesticides (the so-called zero residue), has nothing to do with organic production, because synthetic pesticides could very well have been used throughout the vegetative cycle without leaving a trace.

So organic peach today, means very small production, usually unprofitable for the farmer (with very high risk in production), and sold at a high price, or frequent deception from the farmer, and from the distribution channel. For example, be suspicious if you find organic peaches in a supermarket. The structure of peach organic production and the volumes produced don't meet the requirements of this type of marketing.

When you read all these articles that claim "bio could feed the world", just know that you are being manipulated. The future will undoubtedly be very different, but currently, organic production can’t feed the world, for the simple reason that many problems currently have no solution in organic. Today, organic can feed a certain world, rather Western and wealthy. Organic eating today is the privilege of a few. The poor and developing countries are content to hope they can feed themselves.

It's true that progress in this direction is made daily, but for the moment at least, synthetic pesticides are still essential for a large part of agriculture.

But see the case of the peach, which is not at all a unique case. The natural hardiness of the species is low. Genetic work on natural resistance is in its infancy, and will only succeed, if it succeeds, in several decades. The only solution, in the current state of knowledge, to maintain a production which allows the farmer to live from his production, by obtaining fruits in reasonable quantity having a qualitative standard sufficient for the market and the satisfaction of the consumers, is the use of pesticides.

To make organic, it will of course be natural pesticides, or in any case accepted by the organic specifications.

And again, we are facing a problem. Some diseases (rust, blisters, conservation diseases) and pests (green aphid) don't currently have an effective organic solution.

Of course, what is true today will not be true in a while, and research is progressing rapidly.

Picture: http://www.atlantico.fr/sites/atlantico.fr/files/styles/une/public/images/2015/02/moisissure.jpg

But to affirm today that organic could feed the world is a scam.

It's just letting consumers believe that farmers, marketers, and governing authorities take pleasure in allowing and using pesticides that are supposedly useless, just to be able to pollute the planet and take risks for users and consumers health.

It also suggesting that a quick and complete conversion could be achieved, while it's very far from being the case.

It is overlooking that in many cases, organic is currently profitable only because it benefits from specific aids, and especially a high price differential, which will disappear on its own when organic is the norm, causing an inevitable explosion in consumer prices, or the ruin of farmers.

It's also affirming that developing countries, where farmers often don't have access to pesticides, are the only ones responsible, because of their lack of knowledge, of their own poverty and their famine deaths.

It's also forgetting that what currently feeds city dwellers in their vast majority, is a healthy and diversified food, whose sanitary quality has never been so high, resulting from an efficient agriculture, very mechanized, sometimes industrial, and that changing it for organic will not be easy.

It is also ignoring that if the world converts to organic, it will be necessary to increase the cultivated area, deforest, use more fresh water for food production, more arable land for the production of natural pesticides or fertilizers, and therefore reduce areas of biodiversity. Even the most recent and serious studies overlook this "small" detail (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01410-w).

And to say that a large part of the solution involves reducing food waste is totally illusory. This is called wishful thinking. It's true, it's beautiful, it's well-thought, it does not cost anything to say, but it has almost no chance of success.

Because it's to forget that almost half of the food waste comes from poor countries where the lack of training, the lack of mechanization, the lack of availability of pesticides, the lack of transport means and the lack of conservation means are responsible of the majority of losses included in this "waste".

It also forget the fact that most of the waste in rich countries comes from the aesthetic requirements of the market and poor lifestyle shopping habits, which make a significant part of this waste occur between buying and the timing of consumption, directly at the household level. http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo_10.html

And it will not be easy to change at all. The development of poor countries will not be done in a few years, and the modernization of their agriculture will inevitably lead to the same evolution as those of the developed countries. That is to say that the waste will not be reduced almost, it will change in nature.

Picture: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/Highlights%20&%20Features/Poverty/pov-food-waste-infographic-final505x526.jpg

On the other hand, to affirm that in a few decades (and remaining very vague on the deadline), organic could feed the world, I agree. The market is juicy, the concern of consumers is growing day by day, and it's obvious that this path has a great future, because it's one in which research is the most dynamic, and the most subsidized. Political and economic aid makes things highly easier. I am not very sure that we will find natural solutions to all problems. I remain personally convinced that the future is not for organic production, but for integrated production.

Now, let's be clear, the day that organic will feed the world, then it will become the food standard. This means that there will be no more price differential, no subsidies, no conversion aids. This also means that a large part of the farmers will have disappeared in rich countries, to the benefit of farmers able to produce cheaper in poor countries, or consumer prices will have risen in an explosive way.

But I don't believe that political authorities will let this situation settle, which would be a negative economic revolution that would seriously affect household consumption, and therefore countries’ economies.

And we will stay at the first hypothesis. Most of the food will then come from poor countries, which will remain competitive despite high transportation costs (both economic and ecological levels).

We will produce organic, and we will continue to pollute as much as now, if not more.

Personal picture

We must also see that the giants of agro chemistry have already felt the wind turn. They have taken the lead. All, without exception (Bayer-Monsanto, ChemChina-Syngenta, Dow-Dupont, BASF and others) are investing, or have already done so, in locations or buy-outs of companies or laboratories, specialized in the research for biological phytosanitary solutions. They started to offer organic solutions to many crop problems.

In fact, if the future is probably organic, it's probably not in the reduction of pesticides, on the contrary. We will continue to spray crops as much, if not more than currently, everything will depend on the duration ability of these new organic solutions. Simply, synthetic pesticides will be substituted by pesticides accepted in organic.

And I'm willing to bet that we will again have some pretty scandals around this or that organic pesticide which we will have discovered that it pollutes tablecloths, soils, that it's an endocrine disruptor or that one finds it in children's hair.

You see, all hope is not lost, there will still be enough to feed environmental NGOs or citizen movements, even when the world will be organic.

This is because organic does not always mean healthy and environmentally friendly.

But when the little manipulable people will understand that, I really wonder how the situation of Western agriculture will be.

But we must recognize that farmers currently converted to organic (and a priori excellent professionals, it's not to denigrate) will then have a clear head start in terms of cost management in organic farming, which will be absolutely fundamental to the survival of farms.

And the quality in all this?

The what?

Personal picture

76- Bad weather -7- The lack of light

BAD WEATHER - THE LACK OF LIGHT

This is a common situation in the spring that is not necessarily rain.

The lack of light is just due to a low cloud ceiling, these days without sun, either generally without rain, of undefined weather. It's not good weather, but it's not really bad weather.

Temperatures are usually rather sweet, without night coolness or daytime heat stroke.

It can be a bit depressing. It is possible that I tell you this, because I live in a sunny area, where clouds and rain often seem incongruous.

The plant has a slower photosynthesis. In fact, depending on the period in which this lack of light occurs, the effects are different. Regarding me, and this year, it happened right on the ripening period of the fruits of the earliest varieties.

This slow photosynthesis does not allow the plant to ensure everything, both its own needs and the needs of the fruit.

Besides, if you look at the tree, you will usually see it yellowish, slightly chlorotic. One might think that this is an iron deficiency. But this symptom disappears after a few days of sunshine.

This bad-defined weather, characterized by the lack of light, in ripening period, can cause various problems:

The lack of sugar and aromas, so a tasteless, disappointing fruit,

The lack of color, so the loss of visual appeal (so important for sale https://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2015/12/61-quality-2-appearance.html ), often accompanied by a great challenge for the farmer and the picker to select on the tree, all fruits that must be collected, and let those who have to wait.

Susceptibility to fungal diseases, so large skin defects, and increased risk of rot in conservation.

Accelerated and premature maturity of fruits, just a few days before the date, unattractive, with an imperfect form, and with a flesh that does not reach its ideal texture.

In fact the tree, which "knows" that it cannot run out the task if the sun does not come back quickly, anticipates ripening to get rid of fruit. It is a measure of survival, while the plant knows that the seed is sufficiently mature, for the continuation of the species is ensured.

However, the fruit should not reach full maturation? Is the purpose of the plant is not to reach the ripening fruit?

Basically, what is a fruit? That's another issue I will give you my opinion in a future article.

A few days after sun is back, gradually everything returns to normal. In fact what makes the quality of fruit, flavors, sugar, texture, juiciness, crisp, is acquired in the last days before physiological maturity. Thus the improvement of weather, results after a few days in a clear quality improvement.

Similarly, a degradation of the weather results in a few days in a degradation of quality.

But those days of bad weather, which will ultimately had little impact on the tree, will have serious economic consequences for the farmer whose harvest will not live up to his expectations and especially his trade commitments. Sale prices will suffer, and the fruit classification results too.

In this series, which is far from over, I just want you to record one thing:

Agriculture is a feed mill and open pit raw materials, without roof (except the greenhouses, of course), in which the unexpected are numerous and regular.

Ensure standardized quality in these conditions is extremely difficult.

The farmer does everything possible, for its product meet the standards, and set increasingly by supermarkets, on criteria that have nothing to do with the agricultural requirements.

Marketing and standardization require farmer’s work that goes against the very nature of agriculture.

You, consumers are the only ones that can evolve the food market to a little more consistency.

In my article "Food cosmetics" https://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2015/01/37-food-cosmetics.html , I told you that 50% of pre-harvest pesticides are applied for cosmetics purposes.

Is it tolerable?

The farmer has no choice, if he wants to get economical results, than presenting a product that meets the requirements of its customers, although they have generally quite little to do with the consumer expectations on the one hand, and the imperatives of agriculture on the other hand.

65- Bad weather -4- The lack of cold

LACK OF COLD

The perennials plants of temperate or cold climates have a peculiarity. They need cold (chill) during the winter to complete their annual cycle.

Some scientists have studied the question, from the late '40s, giving rise to several methods of calculation. They were then trying to understand the physiology of crop plants, especially woody plants, which live for several years and whose vegetative cycle start in spring, is strongly influenced by the conditions of winter.

The most commonly used method is the one developed by the American Weinberger and published in 1950. It is based on a simple calculation of the accumulation of hours of temperatures below 45ºF (7,2ºC), considered the temperature threshold below which the plant is susceptible to cold for its physiological needs.

Later, other methods have been proposed to combine the hours of cold with heat hours, considering that the effect of a low minimum temperature is partially offset if the maximum temperature of the day is high. It gave rise to various models (Utah, Crossa-Reynaud, Erez, Bidabe, etc.).

Whatever the used model, its comparison to reference is what enables an acceptable interpretation. But that is not the issue. The use of this data permits the classification of varieties of the same species according to their adaptation. This allows the farmer to choose crops and varieties best suited to its production area.

Let's consider an example that I know well, the Peachtree.

The chill behavior of fruit species has been studied mainly in the US, so that the words used often come from American language.

We usually class varieties of peach, numerous (which include nectarines, nectarines, flat peaches, white flesh, yellow flesh, etc.), in 3 categories of cold needs (chill), high-chill varieties, which need more 650/700 hours, low-chill varieties, which need less than 350/400 hours to complete their cycle, and medium-chill between both.

This range of needs is quite natural, and reflects a small part of the enormous genetic diversity of the species. These features, identified in the native areas of the species (China), have been used by geneticists in their breeding programs (see my article on this subject http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/3-selection-mutation-breeding-gmos.html) to create commercial varieties adapted to different types of climates.

What happens if a plant suffers a lack of cold?

In winter, when the plant is in dormancy, it actually has a physiological activity, very discreet, but fundamental. Plant organs (wood buds and flower buds) complete their internal development thanks to the cold.

A lack of cold disrupts this phase. The plant is unable to complete its internal development. Theoretically, it can't wake up from its winter dormancy. Yet the plant reacts not only to the chill but also to the photoperiod, which is the length of day and night.

When the days begin to lengthen, so from late December in the Northern Hemisphere, plants "know" that spring is approaching and it is time for them to wake up. Yet, they have slept very badly, because of the lack of cold, and the awakening will be chaotic.

In areas like here, in Andalusia, where the problem of the lack of cold is usual, the choice of adapted varieties and crops is generally well assumed by farmers. It is even usually a prerequisite to be able to produce annually and ensure the sustainability of the farm.

But this year, with the particularly mild winter that lived the Northern Hemisphere, many farmers in areas where this phenomenon does not usually occur, could have some surprises this spring.

In Morocco, where the lack of cold is very common, it's normal to observe large flowering disparities.

Farmers will have to keep an eye on the bud break of perennial crops, because it is very likely that the buds begin their cycle unusually early. On some crops, very susceptible to certain diseases, as it is precisely the case of peach, of whom one of the major diseases, leaf curl, settles down from the bud break, it will probably be necessary to anticipate the protection to avoid bad surprises later. We must also remember that insects, animals, fungi, bacteria, respond to the same stimuli as seasonal plants. So if a plant has its bud break very early, its usual diseases and pests will be problematic very early too.

Lack of cold causes a huge gap between the presence of fruit and the leaf development.

Then, it is likely that until harvest (specially spread out under these conditions), farmers find many and varied physiological abnormalities. Specifically, flowering, which in the case of peach tree, usually lasts between 10 and 15 days, and may drag on longer than one month, floral defects may be numerous (flowers without ovary, abortion of the pistil, fall of buds before they open, etc.). Wood buds will have difficulties to start, and will do it with a big time lag, causing the young fruits are not properly fed by lack of photosynthesis. Agricultural losses can also be situated on a lack of fruit size and a lack of quality.

Moreover, this anarchic but very early budding, could substantially increase the sensitivity to spring frosts, should they occur. "A warm Christmas means a cold Easter", popular wisdom doesn't make a mistake there.

It's usual to find fruits nearby maturity beside others barely out of the flower, with several weeks of shifting maturity.

Finally, important for fruit growers, it is common in these circumstances, that the first fruits, much more advanced than the later ones, cause significant physiological falls, by emphasizing the effects of competition between largest and smallest fruits. It is therefore advisable to delay decisions thinning, and do it with caution.

Over time, the plant will eventually balance, but the farmer will suffer serious consequences of lack of production and lack of quality.

In short, a too mild winter can be a serious problem, both in agriculture and in gardens. Plants may be sufficiently disrupted, and the risks of frost in spring are high, with potentially serious consequences.

The cold wave that is coming now should put the record straight, except for plants that have already begun their budding process, which makes them more vulnerable to the cold.

17- Result of thinning

Among my small illustrative posts, especially important during periods of heavy workload, and in order to keep the blog active, here's one I do, almost by accident, after finding some trees that have not been thinned.

This is just to illustrate the importance of the work done, in case the previous post on the subject (No. 13) was not clear.

If the farmer dedicates many hours of work, with a high cost, is that there is a reason.

The thinning time varies according to the crops and varieties, depending on weather conditions during flowering, and according to the market purpose of the company.

Some species self-regulate their charge very well, as is the case, for example, of cherry or citrus, although there are some exceptional situations, others, on the contrary, require the intervention of the farmer, as in the case of apple or peach.

In the later case, and with the same objective, the working time can vary from about 100 hours to over 500 hours per hectare. It is the second biggest activity, in time and cost, after harvest.

When thinning is done, the fruits grow in a target of size and quality. The choice of the intensity of work is done according to the variety, to the tree strength, to their health status and the purpose of production and quality. 

When thinning is not done, the fruits are too numerous, too tight, do not grow, deform, and are not of good quality.

  

The tree, depending on its leaves volume, has a certain ability to produce the nutrients necessary for the formation of the fruit and its good feeding. If fruits are too numerous, they are fed by the same elements, because the plant can not produce more, and the quality decreases.

It is generally considered that a peach tree, to make a quality production, must have between 15 and 20 adult leaves per fruit.

Thinning therefore aims to maintain this balance.

And as you can see, it is useful.

8- Portraits of flowers

PEACH FLOWERS

I like to live to the rhythm of the seasons, probably due to my work. And before that, here in Seville, blooms are finished (started this year by mid-January, about ten days in advance), I have decided to interpose something about peach flowers.

The peach tree has two types of flowers, depending on the variety:

The campanulacea flower with small petals. Reproductive organs can be exposed before full flower opening. There is few variety of form and color.

Rosacea flower, the most common type, with large petals, sometimes double, and very envelopping. The reproductive organs are protected until the full opening of the flower. There is great diversity of shapes and colors (always in pink).

Campanulacea type flower

 

 

 

 

 

Rosacea type flower

 

 

 

 

Diversity of rosacea type flowers

Perfect

 

 

 Desordered or neglected

 

 

 

Double petals

 

A little palish 

Fuschia pink (and double petals)

 

 Madam, they are twins (there are two pistils)

 

 
Oh! Sorry!

Senescence

 

      
      



Then, simply comes the fruit formation, evolution and growth till maturity.