A new study came out from New Zealand that I saw on another list. It's quite interesting. It says that heirloom apples seem to be more effective with anti-oxidants and with fighting cancer.
http://www.treecrops.org.nz/re.....ecanc.html
John S
PDX OR
John:
In my opinion the “Delicious†apple is insipid and fundamentally inedible. As a variety, it is truly an oxymoron.
As a Wood Technologist, I am well aware of the variability of wood properties within a given single species dependent on the tree’s genetic heritage, the site where the tree grows (including such factors as soil type, soil nutrients, water availability, slope, elevation, side of the hill, etc.), competition, length of growing season, growth rate, et. al. to indicate a few independent between tree variables. Additionally, there is within tree wood variability dependent on the age of the tree when the wood is formed (there is something called juvenile wood formed during the first 12-15 years), whether it is heartwood or sapwood, where it is located in the annual growth increment (springwood vs summerwood), its height (wood closer to the ground has different properties than wood grown higher up), trunk wood versus branch wood, and whether the tree grows vertically or if it grows at an angle.
And despite what Foresters believe/purport, they really don’t understand all of the aspects associated with trees growing in natural forests where the litter covering the soil (and therein the complexity of this bio-zone) and below the forest litter, the complexity of the mychorrizal species and types. These two layers greatly influence the availability and diversity of soil chemistry, and thus the health and chemistry of the plant species growing there. Further, sometimes predatory insects and pathogens significantly influence wood properties (either as they slowly kill the tree or whether the tree survives).
The reason for all this information is to point out that in studying apple phyto-chemistry (anthrocyanins/anti-oxidants, flavonoids, and tannins/polyphenols, et. al.), the study needs to insure that it is comparing apples with apples (more realistically that growth variables as indicated above are controlled).
It is almost certain that different apple varieties have different chemical contents – all one has to do is taste different varieties to know this is true; but especially known by those who make cider. Cider apples are selected for their sweetness (low acid, low tannins); sharpness (high acid, low tannin); bittersweetness (low acid, high tannins); and bittersharpness (high acid, high tannin). Different species also have different sugar levels (and types - e. g. glucose, levulose, sacchrose), as well as differing acid types (malic, acetic, quinic, citramalic, tannic acids). The color of apple skins and apple flesh is also indicative of chemical variability.
The position of the fruit on the tree may be a big factor as well (sun-exposure, distance to roots, the branch size it is growing on may affect its taste and colors. I wonder if the size of the fruit is also a factor (smaller fruits have a higher skin to flesh ratio than larger fruits). I also think a more mature tree will produce a more complex apple.
Fundamentally, I think growing conditions are a huge influence. Chemical fertilizers that only provide NPK will not produce the same complexity of soil biotic diversity and chemical diversity. The use of herbicides and pesticides certainly affects (negatively) soil bio and chemical diversity. The use of these chemicals also influences (again negatively) the presence and varieties of microbes on the surfaces of the leaves and the fruit. Huge commercial orchards that has a primary focus of maximizing production (instead of flavor) and that depend heavily on chemical fertilizers and herbicides/pesticides are likely to have semi-sterile soils.
Ripeness at picking and length of time in storage are also factors that influence nutritional value and quality. With regard to vegetables, within the first week most vegetables loose half of their nutrients. Buying local and buying fresh is better for you, local economies, and the Earth.
That some heirloom varieties have natural resistance to scabs and various diseases may be because the fruits contain chemicals we can taste (as can bugs which they find unpalatable [us too]). Spitters are probably very healthy and good for you -- if you could just chew and swallow 'em.
I wonder if root stock type is also a significant variable considering it is the roots that absorb soil chemicals and interact with soil organisms.
The report’s early mention of Luther Burbank was almost enough for me to stop reading then and there – for those who do not know the following factoid, it was Luther Burbank who supposedly developed a thornless blackberry. He did, but what he did not realize that the hybrid he developed would (with subsequent pollination) revert to the original thorned phenotype when birds scattered the seeds of those hybrid pollinated fruits. If you live in Western Oregon where Evergreen and Himalayan blackberry are a vicious invasive species (with their monster flesh ripping thorns), you have Luther Burbank to thank.
Lee N
I completely agree, Lee N,
A lot of research has borne this out, much of it by Elaine Ingham. In fact, I can taste the difference in fruit quality, say, between an organic Gold Rush apple and a synthetically grown Gold Rush apple. They have done studies that showed that a tomato grown properly organically has a shelf life of 3 weeks compared to 3 days for synthetic. I wonder about this effect on storage apples for the winter? It makes sense if you think about all those interactions of fungi, bacteria, ciliates, amoeba, flagellates, etc in the soil interacting with the tree.
Apparently the old "Hawkeye" original red delicious was a good apple but it wasn't huge, perfectly shaped and all red. They've bred it so specifically that it has no flavor and apparently, less nutrition.
I don't know about the effect of rootstocks but I sure would like to know.
John S
PDX OR
LeeN: “In my opinion the “Delicious†apple is insipid and fundamentally inedible. As a variety, it is truly an oxymoron.â€
That’s the Safeway version, here’s the original:
[url:2wkmedsd]http://www.homeorchardsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4108http://www.homeorchardsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4108[/url:2wkmedsd]
I also agree with your further easements and feel the depleted natural nutrients of commercial orchards can not compete with our ‘home grown’ fruit. The commercial version of the Red Delicious appears to be on the way out. I tried an organic ‘Piñata’ apple from Fred Meyer last week, nothing to write home about but yet another indicator that the envelope continues to be pushed, even in the commercial world.
Piñata: “A cross between Golden Delicious, Cox’s Orange Pippin and the Duchess of Oldenburg†
I don't think that article really proves the case that heirloom varieties are "better" in terms of their health properties. For a start, in the table on anthocyanins the top scorer is Liberty. Also the number of varieties selected is quite small, and in most cases fairly unusual.
Modern techniques can also be beneficial - think of Santana, developed specifically to minimise the allergenic compounds which prevent some people from eating apples.
If the case is that modern varieties have had the flavor bred out of them then that is a different issue. That appears to have happened with Red Delicious, but not necessarily many other varieties. It would be interesting to compare the cancer-fighting chemicals in a modern Red Delicious strain grown in an intensive commercial orchard, vs the same strain grown in a backyard orchard, vs the original Hawkeye. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the backyard grower will produce more nutritionally enhanced fruit regardless of the variety, simply because of the more natural home orchard regime.
And then there is also the possibility of growing trees on their own roots, which before the large-scale introduction of rootstocks in the 20th century was a common, and some would say more natural technique.
In summary I don't think the article is particularly insightful, but the topics it raises - i.e. how to improve the nutritional qualities of apples - are very interesting.
Also, let's put this in context: eating an apple, any apple, is far healthier than a bar of chocolate etc.
All I've been able to think of since this topic came up is Michael Pollan. "It was in the 1980s that food began disappearing from the American supermarket, gradually to be replaced by 'nutrients'.
We're talking about nutrients here, when we should be talking food, the very good food we're all trying to grow and eat. I find it disturbing.
I work with maintaining an heirloom orchard in the Seattle area and thus am interested in the subject....
I haven't become convinced of the the nutritional superiority of the old varieties.......but am open to being convinced....and haven't studied it.....the idea of the anti-oxidants being better is certainly an intriguing angle.
I love maintaining these old orchards, but the reasons are often more emotional and spiritual for this interest than because I am convinced of the "science" of the nutritional differences between the old ones and the new ones.....frankly, I actually prefer the taste of the ones in the store over some of our old varieties (like the Wealthy) that were never really designed to be good eating apples but are pie apples really and always have been.....I can't see how it does any good for me to lie and pretend I like the taste better of these "oldies but goodies". I just often don't.......it's like saying I know the content of the Old Hollywood movies is better but, the technology and "whiz/bam/boom" of the newer movies is just a lot more exciting to watch.
What seems clearly true is that the commercial varieties are bred for "redness", for "typiness", for storage, and for transport......and that NONE of those cosmetic and practical qualities has anything to do with taste or nutrients....but do the "oldies" deliver when it comes to the real content? That is the question. It makes sense that a backyard apple (and especially a peach) would be better.
Orange Pippin said it very well: "Also, let's put this in context: eating an apple, any apple, is far healthier than a bar of chocolate etc."
Don't ask me how many bars of chocolate I eat when I should be eating apples.....sorry, the 5th amendment still applies.....but, on a different subject, there will be a crew of Seattle Tree Fruit Society people showing up for your HOS event on March 19th.....not sure if I will be there, but look for us guys! 
As someone (an early boomer) who grew up in an urban environment, I believe I can safely state that "food" disappeared from supermarkets and grocery stores much earlier than the 1980's as Pollan purports. The only reason that nutrients began being mentioned is because some of us wanted to know what we were actually eating.
I grew up eating "food" -- canned peas, peeled potatoes, white rice, 'fresh' vegetables so overcooked as to border on mush, fatty meats (before pork became lean), and where fried baloney appeared as dinner way too often. My dentist pointed out that the minute pitting in my teeth is associated with childhood malnutrition.
One can be nutrated by entubation and somehow survive for years as do comatose patients. (Or, is being nutrated associated with the invasive South American rodent taking up residence on your property ?? -- god forbid you might actually eat one and thus be nutrated)
Good nutritious food is separate and distinct from food (only) and nutrition (only) because it requires both skill in cooking and access to fresh, clean ingredients. Sorry Marsha but talking about the nutrients in food is essential to understanding what constitutes good food.
Taste is a cultural phenomenon -- the American palate is so inundated with sugar that if it ain't sweet, too many people won't eat it. As a factoid, in 2005, individual Americans consumed on average 140 pounds of sugar per year. It is safe to say that many heirloom apples are not "sweet" enough for most Americans. Further as the average weekly TV viewing time for individual Americans is 35 hours and 28 minutes, the "culture" and foods being shown and advertised therein by this corporate controlled media almost certainly do not even mention apples of any sort.
Further, before refrigeration, different varieties of apples were grown for their storage properties. Apples that had higher levels of acid and tannins may have lasted longer, AND that such apples may have required appropriate aging before they were deemed suitable for eating. The cited study did not consider how apple chemical properties change with time; it may be something we will have to relearn if we need to decrease our energy usage.
And given that the newly invasive Spotted wing drosophila has the potential to completely decimate various fruit crops, apple varieties that are unpalatable to this damned menace may be the only apple varieties available to us.
I think the article is very insightful, but I will agree with Orangepippin that it absolutely does not conclusively prove that heirloom varieties are healthier than modern ones. I liked the article, but the "conclusive proof" idea is ridiculous.
It is really exciting to see the possibilities of what it can lead to. It is actual empirical evidence of something we have just begun to learn about: antioxidants. Health scientist hardly talked about antioxidants 20 years ago. We know that certain apples have a lot more vitamin C than others, Calville Blanc D'hiver, or Winter Ribston , for example.
What really makes me interested about this article is the possibility of leading to future research and a lot more evidence. Liberty did really well in one test, but none of the others. I don't think it's saying no modern varieties will do well, it was making a generalization. Some of the New Zealand varieties are very obscure here.
Lee N's point about tannins, bitter and sour taste makes sense as a great area for future research. The possibility that russeted apples can help our frightening diabetes rate is very promising, but again, not established. I've heard that exercise and a healthy diet can have some effect, too.
My sense on the difference between the modern and heirloom varieties is more subtle. Heirloom varieties have proven themselves over many years and in real weather. Many modern varieties are human hybrids of hybrids of hybrids. Many have not endured weather, history, culinary history, disease and pests. Civilizations have not thrived on them, and some modern kinds have only been known to thrive on pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and energy intensive cold storage. It makes sense to think about Lee N's model of them not having enough internal substances to ward off rotting like the heirlooms have proven to. I would bet that over time, some will prove to have lots of antioxidants, but probably a smaller percentage than the heirlooms.
I can't wait to see follow up studies. It is interesting to think about the study that Ted Swensen showed in the Pome News about the antioxidants in apples. Of the top 75, 74 were crabapples, and then Golden Russet was next. Some crabapples are delicious. Berries and small fruit, it seems, have more than large fruit, although clearly all are vastly superior to milk chocolate, as working in your garden is vastly superior to watching a TV show about it. However, it is dark right now, and I can't garden, but I can learn from you guys about gardening.
John S
PDX OR
A few thoughts:
1. recent article in NY Times on one man's quest for preserving apples
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/garde ... ref=garden
The last paragraph mentions upcoming HOS event.....some of my Seattle associates will be looking for Nick Botner at this event...he is kind of the Northwest equivalent for this man, I think.
2. I am intrigued by Lee's suggestion the smaller apples have a greater concentration of skin and thus more potential anti-oxidants....this would fit in with crabapple observations and with some observations I vaguely remember hearing on another forum.
3. Tim Smith and associate told me in Wenatchee in January that the "spitters" from the seedling apple trees actually often have precisely the ingredients you want for making hard cider.....so yes, even the "ugly" tasting apples that can't give me the "wow" factor are useful to others who drink this. (Maybe not all of the homesteaders that John Chapman helped out a few hundred years ago were totally ignorant, after all.)
Idyllwild
simplepress
jafar
Marsha H
Viron
1 Guest(s)