@kevinfolta Absolutely not a validation. A repudiation ...

@kevinfolta Absolutely not a validation. A repudiation of your methods, not your goals.

1 star 11 comments

KC Tomato liked this post

2/n We've come up with better tomatoes and strawberries from standard breeding methods guided by merging consumer and chemistry data.

3/ It is amazing that you would repudiate plant breeding! It sure seems like that's what the others are doing too.

so according to @EatPodcast, scientific method and the application of science is bad??.... #AgMoreThanEver #IStandWithScience

That's what I don't understand. He misses that we merge consumer, chemistry, genomics data to speed traditional breeding. This is bad how?

Even more oddly, its exactly the type of breeding you'd think they'd want to promote not discourage.

I thought being a reductionist was a good thing.

Which I said where, @wrightmderek ?

Was there a complaint in that screed? All I saw was mockery of polysyllabic chemical names.

.We meld consumer preferences with genomics and analytical chemistry to guide breeding. It works. Not sure why there's a bee in his bonnet.

Pretty sure it was because chemistry. Figuring out which genes help produce good flavors and using that for improvements is unnatural.

Exactly. Doing it with random mutations, gene interactions or radiation is good. Genomics, chemistry = bad.