What is a "strain"

[lakelady]

I had no idea when I came to TV there were so many many different tomatoes. I read Carolyn's book and a few others recently, and holy cow. So, I also read threads on strains of tomatoes like Brandywine, etc. I really must know this. What exactly, is a strain? Is it the same tomato just grown in different areas that changes somehow to perform better/differently?

I've been wanting to ask this question for quite some time now, and finally I just can't take it anymore. I need to know

[carolyn137]

I think there's two types of strains, and one isn't a strain IMO. Let me explain.

There are many so called strains of Brandywine where a person's name is attached to it like Glick's, Sudduth, Pawers, etc. But for the most part they're all the same with few exceptions. Some folks I know have grown out all of the so called strains and usually find no differences.

The Pawers one is amusing. It's a Brandywine that an SSE member grew and his SSE code is PA WE R, so he lives in PA, his last name is Wentling and his first name is Roger, and b'c of a typo that's stayed that comes out to be Pawers.

I do consider the Sudduth/Quisenberry one to be a strain, let me say why.

I think the best understanding of a strain is one that is slightly different from the original in one trait or another yet can be IDed as the original/

Yellow Brandywine ( Platfoot) I think is a good example, b'c that one is smoother than the original and I think is more productive.

Golden Queen (USDA) is another one since it retains the pink blush at the blossom end that other Golden Queens have lost over time.

Brandywine (Suddth/Quisenberry) for many of us has much smoother fruits, tastes a bit better and also more productive for many than other Brandywines.

I Don't consider an original variety that thru mutation or possible cross pollination and subsequesnt selection, to be a strain of the original.

That would pertain, at least for me, for almost all PL versions of an original RL since more than one trait can change in going from RL to PL depending on the DNA molecular mechanisms involved. Such changes can also be due to a simple spontaneous single mutation in which all is the same except leaf form. I consider KB ( Kellogg's Breakfast) and the PL version KBX to be an example of that.

If one grows out Cherokee Purple RL and compares it with Cherokee Purple Potato Leaf, found by Jere Gettle, and at the same time grows Spudakee, a PL Cherokee Purple found by Bill Malin, those who have grown all three in the same season don't always agree that either of the PL/s are the same as the original CP RL. So I don't call those PL variants strains.

This year I grew out a PL version of Indian Stripe, seeds from a fellow Tviller, Bill, and expect to offer it in my next seed offer and while I didn't grow IS this season I've grown it quite a few times before, since I was the person who introduced it, and I think the RL and PL versions look pretty darn close to me.

Summary?

Some call a variety that has a name attached to it a strain, I don't. And I forgot to mention all the Mortgage Lifer ones that have names attached. Of all of those the only one I'd call a strain is the Estler one.

To me a strain is a version of an original where there are subtle yet permanent differences yet the variant can be IDed as being almost the same as the original due to other traits of that original.

[lakelady]

Originally Posted by carolyn137

I think there's two types of strains, and one isn't a strain IMO. Let me explain.

There are many so called strains of Brandywine where a person's name is attached to it like Glick's, Sudduth, Pawers, etc. But for the most part they're all the same with few exceptions. Some folks I know have grown out all of the so called strains and usually find no differences.

The Pawers one is amusing. It's a Brandywine that an SSE member grew and his SSE code is PA WE R, so he lives in PA, his last name is Wentling and his first name is Roger, and b'c of a typo that's stayed that comes out to be Pawers.

I do consider the Sudduth/Quisenberry one to be a strain, let me say why.

I think the best understanding of a strain is one that is slightly different from the original in one trait or another yet can be IDed as the original/

Yellow Brandywine ( Platfoot) I think is a good example, b'c that one is smoother than the original and I think is more productive.

Golden Queen (USDA) is another one since it retains the pink blush at the blossom end that other Golden Queens have lost over time.

Brandywine (Suddth/Quisenberry) for many of us has much smoother fruits, tastes a bit better and also more productive for many than other Brandywines.

I Don't consider an original variety that thru mutation or possible cross pollination and subsequesnt selection, to be a strain of the original.

That would pertain, at least for me, for almost all PL versions of an original RL since more than one trait can change in going from RL to PL depending on the DNA molecular mechanisms involved. Such changes can also be due to a simple spontaneous single mutation in which all is the same except leaf form. I consider KB ( Kellogg's Breakfast) and the PL version KBX to be an example of that.

If one grows out Cherokee Purple RL and compares it with Cherokee Purple Potato Leaf, found by Jere Gettle, and at the same time grows Spudakee, a PL Cherokee Purple found by Bill Malin, those who have grown all three in the same season don't always agree that either of the PL/s are the same as the original CP RL. So I don't call those PL variants strains.

This year I grew out a PL version of Indian Stripe, seeds from a fellow Tviller, Bill, and expect to offer it in my next seed offer and while I didn't grow IS this season I've grown it quite a few times before, since I was the person who introduced it, and I think the RL and PL versions look pretty darn close to me.

Summary?

Some call a variety that has a name attached to it a strain, I don't. And I forgot to mention all the Mortgage Lifer ones that have names attached. Of all of those the only one I'd call a strain is the Estler one.

To me a strain is a version of an original where there are subtle yet permanent differences yet the variant can be IDed as being almost the same as the original due to other traits of that original.

So, just to be clear, as I thought, they are not crosses, but not quite mutations, yet variations that have been grown out and are stable. Is that correct?

As I was reading your book, and of course here on TV, and I have this big spreadsheet I am making for myself and now I've collected and purchased seeds of this and that strain, I was getting a little bugged out and needing to know exactly what it all meant . For next year I was looking at my list, and wondering do I really need 4 Brandywine strains? Which one would be best? yadayada. I do have Sudduths and Croatia that I'd like to grow out next year for sure. I also have Cherokee Chocolate and Cherokee Purple, which I understand are essentially the same and wondered about that too. But the Chocolate was a mutation that grew out I think.

Well, I feel better now and am not so confused. Thanks for clarifying and explaining it Carolyn!

You see, I was also wondering how the heck you all know something is a new heirloom tomato, say in the red category. There are so very many, and I wonder, there are probably so many that look and taste identical, could they really be the same thing? Cataloging and categorizing must be a huge job, and I'm glad it's not mine because I would get lost somewhere in the middle. Thanks to all of you that do that, so the rest of us can sit back and enjoy them!

[travis]

I consider a strain to be a line derived over several seasons from a single variety after an initial selection from a single plant that exhibited improved characteristics without benefit of outcrossing, rather by continued selection to isolate said line.

[carolyn137]

Originally Posted by travis

I consider a strain to be a line derived over several seasons from a single variety after an initial selection from a single plant that exhibited improved characteristics without benefit of outcrossing, rather by continued selection to isolate said line.

Pretty much what I said Travis, but you added the selection from a single plant, I'll add of a pre-existing known variety, and add that I don't consider a mutation from a pre-existing variety to be a strain.

Ah, that I could be as concise as you were, but no, I had to go ahead and give examples and all that.

Edited to add a pre-existing known STABLE variety.

[lakelady]

LOL no worries! Thank you both so much; I wouldn't want to lose sleep wondering about this, and trust me, it was really bugging me Now I KNOW what it is.

[travis]

Carolyn, I appreciate your penchant for giving examples and don't mind at all when your posts get lengthy. Sometime I may have to read them in spells, but that's because as I get older, I guess I'm getting sort of ADD.. Or maybe my short term memory kicks in at mid-paragraph, and I have to keep doubling back to reabsorb information. Also I try to keep my explanations shorter and shorter so I don't forget what the heck I'm talking about before I get to the end of a sentence.

Yes, you are correct to point out that a mutation of a previously known, stable variety shouldn't be called a strain of that variety. I should poke that into my definition somewhere too.

[eyolf]

Open pollinated crops often exhibit some degree of variability within a variety. An old open-pollinated tomatoe that I really like is John Baer. John Baer originated as a selection from an older variety known as "Chalk's early Jewel", and as such it is similar. About the same time, another grower selected "Bonny Best" from Chalk's early Jewel. A Canadian seed company sold seeds for an "Early Alberta" which is also a child of the original Chalk's early Jewel.

I have grown all 4 of the varieties mentioned above, and because I have a very curious nature, I grew several plants each from several sources to be certain I could compare an "average". To my untrained eye, Bonny Best, John Baer, and Early Alberta were indistinguishable. All could be described as an "improved" Chalks, generally larger with more uniformity and fewer blemished fruit. Early Alberta was a day or two earlier (all are fairly early for a nearly-century-old variety), but more prone to fungal blights. Another variety, Pollock, was selected for more recently by another Canadian from the prarie provinces, and represents further improvements.

In my opinion, all represent a "strain" of the original, because they still retain a lot of the characteristics of the parent variety. I don't know where Chalk's came from, but I think its safe to call it a "strain" of an even older type.

I think the term "variety" is really a proprietary term, useful for commerce and marketing. "variety" implies research and careful , deliberate selection, while strain implies a slower, less deliberate process. The reality is that Dr John Baer noticed one superior plant, saved seeds from it and grew them out, saving only the seeds from the best plants that exhibited the improed traits, the same as any other grower/farmer. The terms could be interchangeable if we let them be.

Notice I left "Landrace" out of the discussion?

[Petronius_II]

Weighing in kind of late on this thread, but... mostly here today to further discuss the Brandywines.

I've been doing a lot of research into the Brandywines, and here's what I, um, THINK I've found, from various sources:

-- Glick's and PAWERS are basically one and the same.

-- Sudduth's is only slightly different from the above.

-- Glick's/Pawers is probably a bit closer to the original Johnson & Stokes seed stock circa 1889. but more connoisseurs think Sudduth's is somewhat better, than think not.

Is that correct?

[carolyn137]

Originally Posted by Petronius_II

Weighing in kind of late on this thread, but... mostly here today to further discuss the Brandywines.

I've been doing a lot of research into the Brandywines, and here's what I, um, THINK I've found, from various sources:

-- Glick's and PAWERS are basically one and the same.

-- Sudduth's is only slightly different from the above.

-- Glick's/Pawers is probably a bit closer to the original Johnson & Stokes seed stock circa 1889. but more connoisseurs think Sudduth's is somewhat better, than think not.

Is that correct?

No, I Don't think that's correct. It was Roger Wentling of PA who listed a Brandywine and no idea what strain it was, but his SSE code name is PA WE R, and that code name was put next to his listing and so it was a typo that led to the non-existant Pawers strain.

Glicks was introduced by Will Weaver and said it went back to Johnson and Stokes, but seveal of us, I'm one, have the line drawing of the one they introduced in 1989 and no leaf form was shown, just a line drawing, color or whatever was mentioned and since Red Brandywine was sourced back to Chester, CO, PA it seems reasonable that it was Red Brandywine that Johnson and Stokes showed.

So no comparison between Glick's and Pawers since the one that Roger Wentling grew was never known.

It would appear from all that we know that the Sudduth/Quisenberry might be closet to the original and in 1980 when Ben Quisenberry got that one from Doris Sudduth Hill it was said to have been in the family for close to 100 years or so, which takes it back to around 1880 or so.

I think you might find the following article very interesting.

http://www.vintageveggies.com/inform...randywine.html

[travis]

I think "Sudduth" and "Quisenberry" Brandywine (which should be one and the same as Ben Quisenberry acquired it from Dorris Sudduth Hill) poses a bit of a quandry because Ben Quisenberry sent seeds to Ken Ettlinger circa 1980, who subsequently spent several years selecting from what he describes as a somewhat unstable lot of germplasm.

You can read his explanation at Long Island Seed Project under the heading "Ramblings" where he plainly says he thinks Brandywine was subjected to natural cross pollination in Ben Quisenberry's garden. Add to that the fact that the Brandywine seeds arrived in a packet of mixed seeds including Mortgage Lifter, Big Ben (originally said to be a regular leaf variety, but subsequently named Stump of the World, and now perpetuated as a potato leaf variety), and Brandywine (which Mr. Quisenberry told Ettlinger he would recognize by a leaf shape different than the other two varieties in the same packet). I mention Big Ben here only because if the packet contained Big Ben seeds that happened to be F2 seeds from a Big Ben RL x Brandywine PL natural cross, the likelihood of PL vines arising from Ettlinger's plantings are 1:3, and both varieties are pink.

Meanwhile, the Quisenberry/Sudduth Brandywine also made its way to Johnny's Selected Seeds from where it has been perpetuated independently of Ettlinger's efforts at Long Island Seed Project.

Also, several members of Seed Savers Exchange had access to Brandywine "Sudduth/Quisenberry" seeds via the Yearbook during the same time frame as Ettlinger was working out his stabilization and selections as he describes in his Ramblings.

So, all things considered, if Ken Ettlinger is correct in his assessment of instability in the original seeds he got from Ben Quisenberry, and if several other SSE members were perpetuating Brandywine from the same original ("unstable") source seeds, then I would have to assume there are "strains" of Brandywine "Quisenberry/Sudduth." And I suppose the same could be assumed regarding some of the other perpetuations that acquired various "strain" names via the Yearbook.

Edited to add examples of Ettlinger's comments regarding Brandywine:

"The Seed Savers Exchange was already listing Brandywine Tomato (Ben Quisenberry was the original source of record) among it's members while I was still selecting the plants and fruit from Ben Quisenberry's seed for desirable characteristics. Ben noted that the Brandywine seed came from woman named, Dorris who said it was in her family, the Sudduth family for many years. After three years of selection, I offered the Brandywine Tomato in the 1984 Long Island Seed Catalog."

And regarding the 3 varieties mixed together in that original packet:

"It's my hunch that Ben selected his three big pink tomatoes as a gene pool perhaps somewhat removed from the other plants he grew. He probably wanted his pinks to stay pink. He might have selected from the chance hybrids that showed up in his patch. Sometimes that heterosis or hybrid vigor is noteworthy. My guess is that he was selecting for size and I bet, mostly for the flavor he preferred in all three of these tomatoes. I don't know much about the origin of Brandywine before Ben but certainly Brandywine developed some of it's character in the 'Big Tomato Gardens' of Syracuse, Ohio."

[Fusion_power]

And here I thought a "strain" was what happens to my back when I work too hard in the garden.

In my opinion, a "strain" as applied to tomatoes should only be used to refer to variations in segregating breeding lines. When a tomato variety has crossed with some other variety, it is no longer the same variety and should not be considered a strain or anything similar.

DarJones

[travis]

What do you consider the difference between "a segregating breeding line" and a variety that has been crossed with some other variety and the combination subsequently begins to segregate?

[Fusion_power]

What is the difference between a glass half empty and a glass half full?

The issue I have is that there are "strains" of Brandywine showing up all the time. Obviously they are NOT the same. We have Brandywine, Brandywine Sudduth, Brandywine Cowlicks, Brandywine Pawers, etc, etc, etc.

A breeding line is expected to segregate. You select from the segregants for the traits desired and then name the favored line(s). Sadly, most of the Brandywine strains are the result of re-naming or bee made crosses.

DarJones

[Petronius_II]

Um, okay... Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said... I would've thought it would have occurred to ol' Ben to bag his blossoms, unless he just didn't care that much about the "heirloom" part of the whole deal.

So proposition 1 and the first part of proposition 3 of my query are incorrect. But what about proposition 2, "Sudduth's is only slightly different from the above," and the second part of proposition 3, "...more connoisseurs think Sudduth's is somewhat better, than think not."

Any problems with either of these?