Compo
I have not tried Sarpo varieties myself, but I have heard various reports that they are much more resistant to foliage blight than others, yet the taste is not always praised.
Tuber blight is not an inevitable consequence of foliage blight. For the experiences of forum members who suffered foliage blight this year as regards storage qualities of their crop, see here.
BLIGHT FREE POTATOES
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter
-
alan refail
- KG Regular
- Posts: 7254
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
- Been thanked: 7 times
-
oldherbaceous
- KG Regular
- Posts: 14433
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: Beautiful Bedfordshire
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 710 times
Tis the season to be jolly. 
I have heard the Sarpo family of potatoes, are not very good for the making of chips, i don't know if this is true.
I have heard the Sarpo family of potatoes, are not very good for the making of chips, i don't know if this is true.
Kind Regards, Old Herbaceous.
There's no fool like an old fool.
There's no fool like an old fool.
-
Mike Vogel
- KG Regular
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:31 pm
- Location: Bedford
I used Sarpo Mira from the Organic Catalogue this year and found it yielded a good crop. When the leaves of Maris Piperand Pink Fir Apple had faded and gone brown, there were the Sarpo plants still in green leaf; although they also eventually went brown in September, there was stlii more recognisabl;e leaf on them. So yes, I found them more blight-resistant than the others, although I must say that the tubers of all my spuds were almost all fine.
On the GM issue I am a fence-sitter. Scientists need to explain clearly to the layman why we can be confident that using DNA from an animal to modify a vegetable is a safe procedure [yes, I know that this is not always what GM is, but it sometimes does involve the use of DNA across species in ways which traditional hybridisation, as practised for thousands of years, does not]. They also need to give convincing safeguards against contamination of all other non-GM crops, for the sake of biodiversity if for nothing else. On the other hand, the anti-GM protagonists, whether in brigades, divisions or small guerilla groups, have to meet JB's pioint about feeding the world. As to the dangers of eating GM food, it will take a darn sight more than a few years before anyone can make any confident statements about them, or the lack of them.
Personally, I avoid the stuff and will be sorry if we reach a point at which I'll be unable to do so. But it is possible that GM will be the means of preserving our capacity to grow enough food in harsher climatic conditions. And just because a company is in it for the money, that in itself doesn't mean it is not genuinely trying to fulfill a need in the best way. Think of all the genuinely beneficial products which started as a small patent and have resulted in a multinational: Hoover, for example, or the original Water companies which were formed last century to clean up London's polluted water-suply. Toothpaste manufacturers also come to mind - and the controversy over fluoride still rages.
Commercially, I feel JB is right, but I'll continue eating my produce and buying organic food whenever practicable.
mike
On the GM issue I am a fence-sitter. Scientists need to explain clearly to the layman why we can be confident that using DNA from an animal to modify a vegetable is a safe procedure [yes, I know that this is not always what GM is, but it sometimes does involve the use of DNA across species in ways which traditional hybridisation, as practised for thousands of years, does not]. They also need to give convincing safeguards against contamination of all other non-GM crops, for the sake of biodiversity if for nothing else. On the other hand, the anti-GM protagonists, whether in brigades, divisions or small guerilla groups, have to meet JB's pioint about feeding the world. As to the dangers of eating GM food, it will take a darn sight more than a few years before anyone can make any confident statements about them, or the lack of them.
Personally, I avoid the stuff and will be sorry if we reach a point at which I'll be unable to do so. But it is possible that GM will be the means of preserving our capacity to grow enough food in harsher climatic conditions. And just because a company is in it for the money, that in itself doesn't mean it is not genuinely trying to fulfill a need in the best way. Think of all the genuinely beneficial products which started as a small patent and have resulted in a multinational: Hoover, for example, or the original Water companies which were formed last century to clean up London's polluted water-suply. Toothpaste manufacturers also come to mind - and the controversy over fluoride still rages.
Commercially, I feel JB is right, but I'll continue eating my produce and buying organic food whenever practicable.
mike
Please support Wallace Cancer Care
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
-
Cider Boys
- KG Regular
- Posts: 969
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 112 times
Pleases allow me to say “peace and goodwill to all men (and women)”.
Having said that, it never ceases to amaze me when any one questions the benefits of organic /Gm food, it results in the avalanche of emotion that flows on this normally easy going forum.
Johnboy is certainly very wrong in one aspect, he is not alone on this forum in supporting the development of GM food, I also think GM food is pure common sense.
These debates should be important to all of us but I sense the feeling that if you dare raise any doubts to the perceived conventional wisdom on this forum (pro organic/anti GM) you seem to be castigated as being - not one of us.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to Everyone
Barney
Having said that, it never ceases to amaze me when any one questions the benefits of organic /Gm food, it results in the avalanche of emotion that flows on this normally easy going forum.
Johnboy is certainly very wrong in one aspect, he is not alone on this forum in supporting the development of GM food, I also think GM food is pure common sense.
These debates should be important to all of us but I sense the feeling that if you dare raise any doubts to the perceived conventional wisdom on this forum (pro organic/anti GM) you seem to be castigated as being - not one of us.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to Everyone
Barney
hi barney
from here it looks as if one dares to question aspects of the commercial exploitation of gm, even providing links to websites which document it , one can expect a tirade of personal abuse .
merry xmas
from here it looks as if one dares to question aspects of the commercial exploitation of gm, even providing links to websites which document it , one can expect a tirade of personal abuse .
merry xmas
-
Cider Boys
- KG Regular
- Posts: 969
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 112 times
Hello Richard
On reflection, yes, you do make a fair point.
All the best
Barney
On reflection, yes, you do make a fair point.
All the best
Barney
-
Compo
- KG Regular
- Posts: 1428
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:58 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Been thanked: 14 times
Once again JB you have failed to read what I wrote, I thought that the tone had got out of hand, I am not a moderator, neither do I own the thread that I started, I am entitled to a view, and I did write that I felt that there were two sides to the argument, I have read pro and GM arguments in the press on line and in scientific on line academic science journals. I remain with the view that the jury is out, I also remain with the view that sometimes on here people take it all a bit too personally, please try and have a Good Christmas everyone!!
Compo
Compo
-
Mike Vogel
- KG Regular
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:31 pm
- Location: Bedford
A lot of the problem rests in the fact that we are not speaking face to face. I have little doubt that if Alan and Richard and JB and Compo were talking to each other in the same room they would be just as animated and passionate in discussion but giving each other the respect and friendship which fellow-enthusiasts are bound to feel, and that would be clear from body-language, facial expression, etc. If this GM debate were taking place round a pub table, you'd all be buying each other drinks. Compo's request would be seen clearly as a plea not a demand. JB's trenchant point about people who haven't heard of CS Prakash will be seen as a debating point, not an insult and the debunking of websites as simply asking us all to beware of anything on the web which is not checked out for sources, bias, etc. Etc, etc.
For what it's worth, I have enjoyed the contact I've had with you people. I get the impression that you are all in this to exchange advice and often to help people, which is why almost all of you make your contributions, and I have personal experience of that.
So I hope you are all enjoying the festive season and all the best for 2008.
mike
For what it's worth, I have enjoyed the contact I've had with you people. I get the impression that you are all in this to exchange advice and often to help people, which is why almost all of you make your contributions, and I have personal experience of that.
So I hope you are all enjoying the festive season and all the best for 2008.
mike
Please support Wallace Cancer Care
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
http://www.wallacecancercare.org.uk
and see
http://www.justgiving.com/mikevogel
Never throw anything away.
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your very reasoned posting.
I used the words ignorant and ignorance not to defame Richard or Alan. If you note the context in which they are used it is their unwillingness to even try to understand GM but are always willing to throw mud at 1. C S Prakash, when neither had even heard of him. 2. Monsanto. Both because of their dedicated stand against chemicals they detest whatever Monsanto do. They are so entrenched in their quest to see what Monsanto are trying to do. To them anything that Monsanto try to do will always be denigrated because they are a chemical company.
They made no attempt answer any of the questions but went into the normal anti GM mode of condemnation.
If anybody cares to refer to a dictionary and find out the meaning of ignorant in it's prime meaning they will then view my posting as quite normal.
The European Anti GM lobby is standing in the way of
Science and this is surely a very bad stance.
I appreciate that you Mike wish to grow your Organic vegetable and I will continue Pragmatically but we are only feeding ourselves and not nations.
JB.
Thank you for your very reasoned posting.
I used the words ignorant and ignorance not to defame Richard or Alan. If you note the context in which they are used it is their unwillingness to even try to understand GM but are always willing to throw mud at 1. C S Prakash, when neither had even heard of him. 2. Monsanto. Both because of their dedicated stand against chemicals they detest whatever Monsanto do. They are so entrenched in their quest to see what Monsanto are trying to do. To them anything that Monsanto try to do will always be denigrated because they are a chemical company.
They made no attempt answer any of the questions but went into the normal anti GM mode of condemnation.
If anybody cares to refer to a dictionary and find out the meaning of ignorant in it's prime meaning they will then view my posting as quite normal.
The European Anti GM lobby is standing in the way of
Science and this is surely a very bad stance.
I appreciate that you Mike wish to grow your Organic vegetable and I will continue Pragmatically but we are only feeding ourselves and not nations.
JB.
-
Cider Boys
- KG Regular
- Posts: 969
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:03 pm
- Location: Somerset
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 112 times
Absolutely Mike/Johnboy.
I also hold my hands up that in the past it was me that first used the term ‘fraternity’ and ‘Luddite’ when referring to the pro organic/anti GM personages.
These have wrongly been regarded as insults to some members. They were never meant to demean or insult anyone, just accurately describe people that hold a particular view that (in my opinion) is anti progress.
I just can not accept this so called ‘natural or nature is best attitude’ since so much in nature is surely harmful. One only has to consider the natural deseases and illneses that naturally occur and can affect people’s lives in the most wretched manner imaginable.
It is science and open minded reasoning encouraging the development of chemicals/drugs etc that have improved our lives to-day compared to those of our fore fathers. In my view it is the same with food production, to help eliminate starvation we should support science it all its endeavours including GM research.
To listen to some of the organic (at all costs) supporters, they seem to want us all to revert to some peasant form of farming, no doubt with oxen as the prime mover rather than the unnatural tractor.
Just food for thought
Barney
I also hold my hands up that in the past it was me that first used the term ‘fraternity’ and ‘Luddite’ when referring to the pro organic/anti GM personages.
These have wrongly been regarded as insults to some members. They were never meant to demean or insult anyone, just accurately describe people that hold a particular view that (in my opinion) is anti progress.
I just can not accept this so called ‘natural or nature is best attitude’ since so much in nature is surely harmful. One only has to consider the natural deseases and illneses that naturally occur and can affect people’s lives in the most wretched manner imaginable.
It is science and open minded reasoning encouraging the development of chemicals/drugs etc that have improved our lives to-day compared to those of our fore fathers. In my view it is the same with food production, to help eliminate starvation we should support science it all its endeavours including GM research.
To listen to some of the organic (at all costs) supporters, they seem to want us all to revert to some peasant form of farming, no doubt with oxen as the prime mover rather than the unnatural tractor.
Just food for thought
Barney
-
alan refail
- KG Regular
- Posts: 7254
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re. potatoes: My badly blighted Nicola have kept especially well and we should be eating them well into the new year. The foliage was completely killed by blight; I did not spray the foliage or even remove it (largely out of idleness).
Re. Monsanto: I can only refer again to the link I offered earlier http://www.laleva.cc/pharma/monsantofil ... chor-65491
Whatever a few of you may think, I do try to be open minded, but I am afraid that I just cannot believe that world hunger will be solved by the manufacturers of DDT, rBGH, PCBs and Agent Orange (remember Vietnam?), to name but a few. Monsanto's reported legal harrying of farmers in the alleged protection of its patents and its development of terminator seeds is, to my mind at least, totally at odds with the development of efficient improvement of farming in the developing and third world.
Re. Monsanto: I can only refer again to the link I offered earlier http://www.laleva.cc/pharma/monsantofil ... chor-65491
Whatever a few of you may think, I do try to be open minded, but I am afraid that I just cannot believe that world hunger will be solved by the manufacturers of DDT, rBGH, PCBs and Agent Orange (remember Vietnam?), to name but a few. Monsanto's reported legal harrying of farmers in the alleged protection of its patents and its development of terminator seeds is, to my mind at least, totally at odds with the development of efficient improvement of farming in the developing and third world.
Alan,
So what you are saying is that because Monsanto are a chemical company anything and everything that they do must immediately be condemned. Well how wrong is that!
There is now very little more to be said as you have confirmed the suspicion I voiced in my previous posting.
Monsanto may be the manufacturers of a great many chemicals but they were not the inventors of them all. DDT was produced by a great many companies and DDT is still used in several countries to kill Mosquitoes (namely South Africa and other African states). Many companies produced rBGH, PCBs and
most of them are no longer used. Agent Orange was produced at the behest of the United States Government. If you are a chemical company and your government says please produce something that will do a specific job them the guilty party is surely the US Government and not Monsanto.
As regards your website. Well that is full of so called misdemeanours but follow up the Percy Schmiser case and you will find that he was found guilty of 19 charges in all levels of the Canadian legal system. That man broke the agreement that he had signed with Monsanto. Monsanto gave him the option of paying a levy on the crop that was clearly sown from the GM seed that had been produced from the seed that he had purchased previously. The acreage concerned was 2400 acres and was found to be 98% GM pure. He had sprayed the crop with roundup which had he not known it was GM he would never have done so because it would have killed it stone dead. He was asked to pay a levy of about £4.25 per acre and he chose not to do so and paid the consequences. Breeders rights infringements in this country would be treated exactly the same.
JB.
So what you are saying is that because Monsanto are a chemical company anything and everything that they do must immediately be condemned. Well how wrong is that!
There is now very little more to be said as you have confirmed the suspicion I voiced in my previous posting.
Monsanto may be the manufacturers of a great many chemicals but they were not the inventors of them all. DDT was produced by a great many companies and DDT is still used in several countries to kill Mosquitoes (namely South Africa and other African states). Many companies produced rBGH, PCBs and
most of them are no longer used. Agent Orange was produced at the behest of the United States Government. If you are a chemical company and your government says please produce something that will do a specific job them the guilty party is surely the US Government and not Monsanto.
As regards your website. Well that is full of so called misdemeanours but follow up the Percy Schmiser case and you will find that he was found guilty of 19 charges in all levels of the Canadian legal system. That man broke the agreement that he had signed with Monsanto. Monsanto gave him the option of paying a levy on the crop that was clearly sown from the GM seed that had been produced from the seed that he had purchased previously. The acreage concerned was 2400 acres and was found to be 98% GM pure. He had sprayed the crop with roundup which had he not known it was GM he would never have done so because it would have killed it stone dead. He was asked to pay a levy of about £4.25 per acre and he chose not to do so and paid the consequences. Breeders rights infringements in this country would be treated exactly the same.
JB.
jb having looked at quite a few websites i dont think the percy schmeiser case is qite as finished and clear cut as you suggest,
the link below is his side of the story
http://commonground.ca/iss/0401150/perc ... iser.shtml
the link below is his side of the story
http://commonground.ca/iss/0401150/perc ... iser.shtml
Hi Richard,
I'm afraid that prior to the Canadian Supreme Court hearing all the below mentioned on that website clubbed together to fight Monsanto. They tried to change the whole thing about and included all their own pet dislikes. The Supreme court found poor Percy guilty and as far as I am concerned the actual case is closed.
Percy then went on a world lecture tour and made some outrageous claims against Monsanto.
The funniest to me is this; "Monsanto dropped a GM bomb on my Crop" and there are a whole host of other outlandish pearlers.
The report you post is now 3 years old and if you could find something more up to date it may be more revealing.
I am prepared to accept that Monsanto are not a bunch of angels but then large conglomerations are the only people rich enough to take on something such as GM. Remember that Monsanto are not the only company producing GM seeds. Why is it that they do not seem to get the flack the Monsanto receive.
I suspect it is because it they are a chemical company and really it has very little to do with GM. Richard I am not even trying to defend Monsanto as it is patently clear they are capable of defending themselves. I am here to try and get some sensible debate going on GM itself not a slanging match.
JB.
I'm afraid that prior to the Canadian Supreme Court hearing all the below mentioned on that website clubbed together to fight Monsanto. They tried to change the whole thing about and included all their own pet dislikes. The Supreme court found poor Percy guilty and as far as I am concerned the actual case is closed.
Percy then went on a world lecture tour and made some outrageous claims against Monsanto.
The funniest to me is this; "Monsanto dropped a GM bomb on my Crop" and there are a whole host of other outlandish pearlers.
The report you post is now 3 years old and if you could find something more up to date it may be more revealing.
I am prepared to accept that Monsanto are not a bunch of angels but then large conglomerations are the only people rich enough to take on something such as GM. Remember that Monsanto are not the only company producing GM seeds. Why is it that they do not seem to get the flack the Monsanto receive.
I suspect it is because it they are a chemical company and really it has very little to do with GM. Richard I am not even trying to defend Monsanto as it is patently clear they are capable of defending themselves. I am here to try and get some sensible debate going on GM itself not a slanging match.
JB.
jb, monsanto is the company which the public associate with gm seeds, largly because of the coverage they have received in the media, the fact that they also manufacture agrochemicals is a as far as i can see irrelivant,(in the context of any gm debate), indeed i would guess most of the public is unaware of it.
from the reports i have read
it appears that monsanto's position is that it is immpossible for their roundup resistant canola (oilseed rape) to crossbreed either with commercial crops or wild weeds. if any roudup resistant canola appears in a farmers field it must have grown from some of monsanto's seed deliberatly planted by the farmer with the intent to gain profit from it without paying royalties to monsanto.
monsanto appears to be spraying test patches of suspected roundup resistant crops in farmers fields with roundup herbicide to see if they survive.
jb would you be a happy bunny if whoever it was that developed blight resistant potatoes wandered onto your potatoe plot spreading blight spores about in an effort to determine whether your spuds were blight resistant?????
from the reports i have read
it appears that monsanto's position is that it is immpossible for their roundup resistant canola (oilseed rape) to crossbreed either with commercial crops or wild weeds. if any roudup resistant canola appears in a farmers field it must have grown from some of monsanto's seed deliberatly planted by the farmer with the intent to gain profit from it without paying royalties to monsanto.
monsanto appears to be spraying test patches of suspected roundup resistant crops in farmers fields with roundup herbicide to see if they survive.
jb would you be a happy bunny if whoever it was that developed blight resistant potatoes wandered onto your potatoe plot spreading blight spores about in an effort to determine whether your spuds were blight resistant?????