This rather long posting on the OGD this morning might stir up some discussion:

On a previous Orchid Guide, the following posting was made:

On July 13 2006, a Peruvian Government document referred to as Decreto
Supremo No. 043-2006-AG announced that Peruvian Orchid Nurseries may no longer export collected orchids. From now on all orchids exported must have been propagated in-vitro. It has orchid nursery owners in an uproar, for most of them do not have any stock propagated in-vitro and many do not even have a laboratory. Some have operated this way for decades.. Nursery owners tell me that there is no lead in time given, which you and I know should be 7 years minimum, if your intend is not to destroy the orchid industry of your country. They all blame a given orchid nursery for suggesting the new laws to the government and conveniently forgetting to tell them to give a lead in time. That nursery started a lab a few years ago, is claiming to have propagated large quantities of flasks of different species, but the victims of this new law claim they purchased them from other orchid laboratories.

************************************************** ****
The following is a copy of the letter written to the Peruvian agency INRENA
by the Moores of Miami and Peru:

Ing. Alberto Morizaki INRENA
Intendente Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre
Autoridad Administrative CITES/PE
LIMA
Subject: Decreto Supremo No. 043-2006-AG
Estimado Ing. Morizaki:
I am Zadith Alegria de Moore, owner of the Vivero Nuevo Destino in Moyobamba.
In reference to Decreto Supremo No. 043-2006-AG, we question the legality and constitutionality of this decree that has been imposed upon us at the last minute without having been previously notified of this impending decree to have the opportunity to discuss and oppose this drastic decision that affects all of the legal orchid exporters in Peru. From one day to the next, we are being expected to export only orchids reproduced in vitro that do not exist. Overnight, our nurseries have been forced to close exportations by this unreasonable decree violating our Constitutional rights to free enterprise.
For many years we have been reproducing and propagating thousands of many species of orchids by vegetative means very successfully and we are now expected to make this transition to plants produced only in vitro overnight. This in not only unreasonable but an impossibility because most orchid plants from seed in vitro requires 5 or more years to produce small plants and then 2 more years to produce flowering plants of reasonable size for export. This means that we will have to close our nursery for 5-7 years until we can begin exporting again which is an absurd impossibility that is being imposed upon us. How are we expected to survive and make a living in the mean time.
No country in the world has ever imposed or required such a drastic transition because they understand the reality of orchid production. Only INRENA/PERU. This reality can be confirmed by any qualified world class expert on the propagation of orchids which, apparently, are none in INRENA/PERU. It is also obvious that the person or persons that compiled this list of prohibited plants has no valid knowledge of orchids because there are many names of species on that list that do not even exist and others that do not exist in Peru but in other countries. Even Bromeliads are required to be reproduced in vitro for exportation. Everyone knows that Bromeliads are not and cannot be reproduced in vitro. This only displays the ignorance of the authors of this list. In other words, the authors of this Supreme Decree are not qualified to make such decisions that drastically affect the orchid exporters.
What are the exporters now expected to do with the thousands of orchids that we have been reproducing and propagating over many years? These plants now have no value because they are prohibited for exportation. They will now have to be destroyed to make bench space for new plants produced only in vitro because bench space is very valuable in a nursery. In other words our nurseries will have to go bankrupt because we cannot wait 5 years for these new plants to make the first flowers and then 2 more years grow to a reasonable size for export.
The Peruvian Government invites foreign capital to invest in Peruvian industry. Over the past 8 years we have invested over $300,000 U.S. from our business in Miami to develop Vivero Nuevo Destino in Moyobamba to reproduce and propagate orchid species for export and contribute to the economy of Peru and our employees. Now we are prohibited to export what we have reproduced. This is not a very good incentive for the Peruvian Government to invite foreign capital for investment. We will now have to declare bankruptcy and abandon our project in Moyobamba because it is impossible to continue this business with unreasonable and impossible restrictions.
If INRENA would make a proper study with qualified experts on orchid reproduction, they would determine that this decree is not only unreasonable but also impossible and unrealistic to be accomplished. The only practical and reasonable way for INRENA to limit the exportation of orchid plants produced only in vitro, would be for INRENA to announce to the orchid exporters that INRENA will allow the exporters seven years from the date of this Supreme Decree, to prepare their nurseries for this transition. This would give the exporters a reasonable opportunity to make the transition from vegetative propagation to vitro.
Perhaps INRENA is convinced that Peruflora can achieve this miraculous accomplishment in less than two years as they have claimed; but the rest of the exporters and expert orchid growers of the world do not possess the knowledge of how to achieve this miraculous accomplishment. We do not wish to attempt to deceive INRENA like Peruflora has done.
It is obvious that this new decree was designed to benefit only one orchid exporter. Peruflora has successfully deceived and convinced INRENA that they have achieved this miraculous accomplishment in less than 2 years in order to obtain a monopoly of orchid exportation in Peru with the blessings of INRENA. The world and the rest of the exporters know that this is impossible. This is not a very complimentary image for INRENA.
It has come to our attention that Peruflora continues to advertise and export their orchids that are on the prohibited list of D.S. 043-06AG that are claimed to be reproduced in vitro. This confirms that this D.S. is designed only to give Peruflora the sole monopoly for the exportation of Peruvian orchids and not for the protection of the orchids from being endangered.
We, the orchid exporters, will be asking for a formal investigation into this irregular procedure to question the legality and constitutionality of this abuse that is being forced upon us with D.S. 043-06AG without the exporters prior knowledge. Further, we will formally be requesting that an independent, world class expert on the reproduction of orchids in vitro, to investigate the nurseries of Peruflora to determine the validity of their claims of having all of these species of available that INRENA is allowing for export. Also to investigate the validity of the published list of orchids in D.S 043-06AG, some of which do not exist and others that do not even occur in Peru, which will prove that the authors of this list were not capable or qualified for making such decisions that has drastically affected our financial investments in Peru. This will be executed at our expense and become available for Public Information to those that may be interested.

JUly 13, 2006...that's not really "new" then is it? What has happened since then, or does anyone know? Is this letter the first attempt to do something about the decree?

The picture can be simplified to this:
Inrena:mean: :bowing: :bowing: :bowing: peruvian nurseries

The picture can be simplified to this:
Inrena:mean: :bowing: :bowing: :bowing: peruvian nurseries

:lol: :laugh2:

JUly 13, 2006...that's not really "new" then is it? What has happened since then, or does anyone know? Is this letter the first attempt to do something about the decree?
July 13 was the first posting, referred to in "On a previous Orchid Guide, the following posting was made:"

The letter from Zadith Alegria de Moore is more recent, and apparently some nurseries are getting together to try to change INRENA's crazy ruling.

But you may have missed that Peruflora is apparently behind this INRENA rule. That's one of the two nurseries in Peru who had permission to collect, propagate and sell kovachii. If I remember other postings correctly, that's the nursery where the Fischers and Chuck Acker got their flasks.

I just think it is pretty underhanded the way they are trying to monopolize orchid exports.

I just think it is pretty underhanded the way they are trying to monopolize orchid exports.

Indeed. I would like to hear more.

I'm not sure what INRENA's motivations are in not allowing a seven year period to allow the building of propagation facilities. Maybe they are afraid that many would use the seven years to further strip habitats that are already in danger? In any case, habitats can best be protected by allowing controlled collection and propagation by reputable labs in the countries directly responsible for habitat protection. Flasks could be sold directly to the hobbyist or commercial grower, thereby producing an economic advantage to really impoverished economies.

I've heard that other South American countries besides Peru are getting serious about CITES, and are pushing for a limitation on exports; essentially requiring proof from the commercial growers that the products they are selling are propagated in their labs and not collected plants.

Tom
I do understand the principle idea behind propagate as much plants in the lab as one can in order not to wipe out plants in nature. I am all for it too.
But there is one little flaw to the concept, which leaves the peoples who need the money the most (the poor indigenous) out of the equation. While the companies that can invest money in lab facility etc(read "modern homosapien") will be ok as usual.

1) why could they not train the poor peoples who's living depend on the income of harvesting the wild plants to plant the artificial seedlings in the wild, then harvest them say 2 years later. (most countries do that with their wood forests, no?)
2) Or they could give the poor peoples certain amount of tags per year (similar to the hunting, fishing permit here) but of course, free to the peoples with low income. The farmers will tie the tags to the harvested plants, and the goverment can check all the export plants with tags. Thus they can control the harvest & export.
3) From what I can guess (I've never been down there, so forgive me if I err in my assumption), certain plants seem to be in abundance. I quote this piece on ODG by Mr. Fischer here:
"I collected boisserianum in Peru in 1988 at a place called Tres
Cerritos. There were over 50,000 plants growing on a steep slope of
volcanic red clay in an area about 100 feet at the base by 50 feet
high. There were seedlings all the way to mature plants with leaf
spans of 2 meters. Phrag. wallisii also grew along with them but in
deeper shade."
50,000 plants in just one location 100 feet x 50 feet. That does not sound too rare.
:confused:

Hi Hien,

I know this is pretty utopian thinking, but I think the best place to get the money for near in situ propagation labs is from CITES itself. If every country that is a signatory to CITES were to set aside a portion of the permit fees they collect to build propagation labs in the donor countries, and then train the most effected people to operate them, we would be a giant step ahead of what's going on now.

As far as the 50,000 wild Phrag. boissierianums found in habitat in 1988, one has to wonder how many of these have survived to this date because of the intense collection that has occured in virtually every Phrag. habitat since then.

I'm not sure whether in situ propagation of Phragmipediums (or any other Genus for that matter) by the indigenous people is a viable solution or not. It is something that was supposedly tried by scientists on Mount Kinabalu in Borneo for the preservation of Paph. rothschildianum, but I haven't heard whether the experiment was a success. Maybe one of our SOF members who might be closer to the situation could bring us up to date?

Like it or not, CITES appears to be here to stay. For some reason (political?)it seems to be very difficult to convince CITES authorities, regardless of where they might be, that controlled harvest and in vitro propagation are the true path to habitat conservation. It seems crystal clear to me that the current system doesn't protect wild habitat. Maybe I'm just naive.......

Tom
Peoples with good thinking like you should have some saying in CITES matter.
Instead we have a bunch of hard hearing bureaucrats who keep insist on the rigid way that not working.

The Vietnameses have a very crooked sense of humor. There is a popular old saying which very apts in situation such as this:
“Mieng nha quan co gang co thep,
Do ke kho vua nho vua tham”
Here is the loosely translation:
“The mouth of a king’s officer has iron & steel;
The thing of the poor destitute person is both dirty & darken bruised”
the word “Thing” implies the anatomic part with similar structure to the officer ‘s mouth.
On the surface, the idiom sounds like they resign to the fact that they have to put up with absolute power, they actually making fun of the guy who makes them miserable by compare his mouth directly with.....(if you figure it out, the image is very funny):p
Hope this Vietnamese old idiom does not offend any SOF member who does not like jokes". If it does , please, accept my apologize.

Seems appropriate to me, Hien.

Phragfan
I am glad you enjoy the vietnamese pun:p :p :p

Tom
Peoples with good thinking like you should have some saying in CITES matter.
Instead we have a bunch of hard hearing bureaucrats who keep insist on the rigid way that not working.

The Vietnameses have a very crooked sense of humor. There is a popular old saying which very apts in situation such as this:
“Mieng nha quan co gang co thep,
Do ke kho vua nho vua tham”
Here is the loosely translation:
“The mouth of a king’s officer has iron & steel;
The thing of the poor destitute person is both dirty & darken bruised”
the word “Thing” implies the anatomic part with similar structure to the officer ‘s mouth.
On the surface, the idiom sounds like they resign to the fact that they have to put up with absolute power, they actually making fun of the guy who makes them miserable by compare his mouth directly with.....(if you figure it out, the image is very funny):p
Hope this Vietnamese old idiom does not offend any SOF member who does not like jokes". If it does , please, accept my apologize.

LOL Hien! I'm going to try this one at dinner with the in-laws. What do you think????:D

LOL Hien! I'm going to try this one at dinner with the in-laws. What do you think????:D

I can just imagine the surprise looks on their faces. :laugh2:

Teresa

You have to wait for the right topic such as when you defend an underdog.
(My grand mother used it whenever she heard of peoples who abused their power, which were quite often back then)
For example, here, in our own time:
- when the family talking about the travesty of the "EMINENT DOMAIN" , read "an excuse to grab others' properties without just compensation".
- A police officer who hand you a ticket just because he or she needs to fulfill the monthly quota, and the judge decides that the police officer is right.
Well in this case , you could actually use the phrase twice.
The application is endless.
As long as there are grandiose personalities who meter out orders out there, you will have plenty of opportunities to use the ancient idiom.:p

As long as there are grandiose personalities who meter out orders out there, you will have plenty of opportunities to use the ancient idiom.:p

Well then there should be many opportunities as long as my mother in law is there!:rolleyes:

I think it was Teresa who wanted to know more. Here is a letter that will appear, probably tomorrow, on the OGD. I received it from a friend who received it directly from Lee and Chady Moore:

From:Lee Moore
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Reply to Anders

We are Lee and Zadith (Chady) Moore, owners of Vivero Nuevo Destino in Moyobamba, Peru and authors of the letters to INRENA about this absurd Supreme Decree that has been imposed on us all of a sudden overnight without warning.

This Decree was not made by INRENA (The CITES Authority in Peru) but a is Congressional Bill that was passed into law and signed by the President Toledo before he left office last July. INRENA only enforces and implements this Supreme Decree passed by Congress. This bill was sneaked through without the knowledge of any of the orchid exporters except Manuel Arias and Son, Manolo of Peruflora and his political friends who are the authors of this Decree in order to gain the monopoly on orchid exports from Peru because somehow, they have convinced INRENA that all of the 352 species being offered on their website are reproduced in vitro which is an absurd claim as anyone should know.

All of the rest of us are expected to make this overnight transition of exporting mature plants that have only been reproduced in vitro. Peruflora has been able to accomplish this miraculous feat in less than a year like when Jesus fed the multitude with a basket of fish, a loaf of bread and a jug of water that he turned into wine. I am sure that professional orchid growers around the world would like to know his secret for this miraculous accomplishment.

This Decree includes such other things as Cacti, Bromeliads and even Mohogony trees etc. to be reproduced in vitro. Whoever heard of such thing? Also in the prohibited orchid list, we found species listed that do no even occur in Peru but from other parts of the world. This shows that the authors of this absurd Decree do not have any concept of what they are talking about. It is obvious that this Supreme Decree was designed only to benefit the Peruflora monopoly and not protect the orchids in the wild.

Everyone knows that the orchids Peruflora exports are 'wild collected' because we live there and we know all of the local collectors of wild orchids and they tell us about the plants that they ship to Peruflora. Besides, it is obvious that their plants have been blooming for over 5-6 years from first flowering indicated by the flowered out back bulbs. Peruflora has been operating a laboratory for only a few years which makes their claim of being reproduced in vitro an impossibility. Unfortunately, we cannot convince INRENA of this fact.

We are one of the legal registered growers of Phragmipedium kovachii authorized by INRENA. Each of the growers were allowed to possess 5 (five) collected plants to begin propagation and reproduction. In 2005 Peruflora published in their website a list of customers that have legally purchased and received their flasks of Pk and hybrids thereof. In less than a year and a half, They registered over 150 buyers of Pk flasks and numerous other hybrids of Pk. Many of the customers purchased up to 4 flasks of these. That is a lot of flasks to be produced from only 5 plants right out of the jungle not to mention the hybrids supposedly from a species that produces very little seed in each pod and a high percentage of these are not even viable. We would all like to know how this miraculous feat was accomplished. Not to mention a couple of hundred flasks that were offered for sale in the recent International Orchid Show in Australia.

I have a feeling that a lot of people who bought these Pk flasks are going to be unpleasantly surprised when they start blooming and see what species or hybrid they really are.

I would like to see Peruflora try to explain this phenomena to a knowledgeable grower, not INRENA, who accepts their phenomenal claims. Unfortunately there are no knowledgeable orchid experts in INRENA that have any concept of this reality.

In 2002, we had purchased a number of these Pk that were being brought in from the wild and being offered to the nurseries. These plants were declared and registered with INRENA at the time. This was before all of the scandal started with this species. By 2005, we had reproduced over 220 seedlings of the Pk without the means of vitro. These grew naturally in our soil in our nursery before receiving authorization to possess the 5 legal plants to use in reproduction. Needless to say, since we had not received official authorization to grow this species, these 220 seedlings were confiscated by INRENA and sent to a university in Lima where they promptly died or disappeared. Now, we are starting over again and I can tell you that it is a very slow process with only 5 plants to work with.

This is the reality.

If anyone is interested in seeing a copy of this Supreme Decree
No 043-2006-AG It was published in El Peruano (Gov't newspaper that nobody reads-only lawyers) 13 July 2006 Look at www.inrena.gov.pe

Zadith Moore
Vivero Nuevo Destino
Moyobamba-Peru

That's horrible!:mad:

Hi phragfan
-Thanks for the post,I had wondered for a while of who is the 3rd nursery that was licensed to raise the 5 pk. Apparently, according to his letter, Mr. Moore is one of the original 3 (I only heard of the other two names in the past)
-I guess peru congress has too much time on their hand to create this law :rolleyes: (kind of similar to ours having a hearing on the pro-sportmen using steroid recently):rolleyes:
-He lost 200 seedlings from the propagation! what happen to his other plants that he purchased & the authorized 5 to breed with? Do they take away those too?
-Does that mean that it is ok for anyone in Peru to own a wild pk but can not propagate with it?
-Both peru-flora & Mr. Manrique offering species & hybrids of pk now. Does Mr. Moore has any pk or hybrid seedlings at all from his 5 pk?

Good questions, Hien. I don't know. Maybe we'll hear from someone who does know.

From what I understand, though, only 3 nurserys were legal to collect 5 Pk plants each, and to propagate with them. The idea was to protect the wild population. Which, as we know, has been largely decimated by poachers.

This was posted on the OGD yesterday:
From: "Anders Hjelmencrantz" Subject: [OGD] The INRENA Law.....again.

Question: OK as I understand it is still OK to export mature adult plants from Peru to another country as long as these plants have been propagated in vitro (right?).
Reply:That is right but nobody has any!!!!!!!!! And they won't have for several years to come so, we are all out of business until then except for PeruFlora who has deceived and convinced INRENA that their plants are grown in vitro when they are all in fact wild collected.

Question: I also know there is a list issued by the Peruvian authorities stating which species that are controlled under this act. I have been trying to locate this list but have not been successful so far; does anyone have it?
Reply: All of them! Go to _www.inrena.gob.pe_ (http://www.inrena.gob.pe/) /
click link Forestal Y Fauana / Biodiversidad / Lista de Orquideas Amenazadas

Question: Furthermore, does anyone know what nurseries in Peru that have been authorized to sell mature plants (PeruFlora, Agroriente Viveros....? Any more???)
Reply: Those two mentioned above plus our nursery of Vivero Nuevo Destino Moyobamba (_www.nuevodestino-us.com_ (http://www.nuevodestino-us.com/) ) are registered to export mature plants but PeruFlora is the only one claiming to have them from vitro which is a lie and being allowed only through the corruption that exists within the CITES organization to give him the momopoly.
Best regards, Lee & Zadith Moore Vivero Nuevo Destino/Moyobamba, Peru

Just ridiculous. :disappointed:

More interesting posts on the OGD:
_____________________
Subject: Re: [OGD] Peru

Many books could be written, about all that has happened with and around Phragmipedium kovachii, since its discovery four years ago.

In 1990, Manual Arias Silva had a flasking facility. In 1996 he stated in a lecture that he had stopped his in-vitro propagation of orchids, due to certain difficulties he faced running a laboratory. In 2000, when I and two Peruvian friends had a three hours tour of the Arias orchid growing facilities in Lima, guided by Manuel, he showed us a tiny room, possibly used for flasking a long time ago, but non-functional then. In December of 2004, Manuel Arias told one of my Peruvian friends that all the Phragmipediums he exported in 2004, with INRENA permits, were propagated by division from the large number of Mother plants he collected prior to the time CITES was enforced.

In May of 2003, when Manuel Arias obtained INRENA permit 002 to collect his five legal Pk plants from the habitat for the purpose of in-vitro propagation, he did not have a functioning laboratory. Though I informed INRENA of several orchid laboratories in Lima that were perfectly capable of starting Pk propagation in 2002, they were not issued a permit..

It was not until November 2003 that Manuel invested heavily in a new laboratory, by purchasing laminar flow hood units from Singapore. He then started a massive program of in-vitro culture, after some members of his family, or staff, were invited to learn in-vitro propagation techniques in England. Peruvian species orchids propagated from seeds in November of 2003, will not be full size plants today, October 2006.
Bill, it really does not matter today that Arias did some flasking in the 80's. The Moores are correct, it is impossible for the 352 full size orchid species, offered for sale by Arias today, to have been started from seeds in their laboratory that opened less than three years ago.

Alfredo Manrique, the first Peruvian selected by INRENA to propagate Pk in-vitro from five legally collected Pk plants and now an expert Pk grower, fully agrees with the Moores that there simply is no way one can produce 800 flasks from five legal Pk plants in such a short time. What makes it even less likely is the fact that Manuel Arias divided his five legal plants into too many divisions; limiting flowering severely. The proof of this is in the pictures taken of his Pk plants in the last two years by INRENA. What many do not know is that INRENA, since 2004, kept a picture archive of all the Pk plants collected legally, taking pictures of the plants two or three times a year.

Peruflora or Peruanino have no orchid nurseries, they are exporters of Manuel Arias' orchids and in charge of the in-vitro lab.

In 2002, as a non- Peruvian, I was concerned about the survival of the species and suggested to INRENA that they immediately start an in-vitro propagation program for Pk. I knew of several laboratories in Peru who actively propagated orchids in-vitro.
Government wheels of progress turn slowly, it took another full year, till 2003, before artificial propagation of Pk was started.
I know of one other non-Peruvian who also was concerned, Miss Angela Mirro, who generously donated the proceeds of her first painting of Pk to the Lima based Club Peruano de Orquideas, for the purpose of establishing a Pk conservation program.

Some failures of Peru in connection with Pk are that they did little to stop the total depletion of the big Pk habitats and they had no plans for marketing the Pk species in such a way that it would benefit the small vendors living in the Pk habitat area, who up to this day live on less than US$ 50.- per month and sell Pk plants illegally at US$ 7.- each.

Peter

Is there a way to change this new law? Is there any chance it could be changed?

What is the bottom line if the law stands? Pk will still be collected from the wild and sold until they are all gone, and then it will be up to this one monopolized nursery plus those few who have already bought seedlings to prolong the existence of pk. What is peruflora going to do when they are all out of their *legal* seedlings? Collect more from the wild to sell as *in-vitro*?

Good questions, Teresa. Maybe we should all go down there and storm INRENA. As if that would help...:confused: :mad:

Maybe if we gave them some money..... :poke:

Teresa & Phragfan
This sounds like a lot of factors involve in this story and it not just pk.
Here is what I can guess from the letters (not FACT by any mean)

-3 nurseries got permissions to propagate from 5 pks each (total 15 legal)
-Mr Moore acknowledges in the letter that his nursery also have a number of pk purchased before Irena clamping down on all the illegeal collections. And from that he made 200 of new propagations (I guess single division of lead buds)
Which the authority confisticated.
-Mr. Moore does not mention any activity on in vitro pk (just the other 2 firms)
-The other two firms (peru flora & Manriques) do not claim of any extra wild collect pk (other than the 5 allowed). Nor do they sell any seedling from this type of division.
-There maybe quite a few other peoples who in posession of pk in Peru and around the world, but nobody admit it (And we do not know who )
-The amount of 150 peoples in Peruflora list sounds like a lot , until you factor in what kind of flask theses customers bought. For example in my case, I bought the smallest flasks type (which only contains 5-7 plants per flask, absolute no extra plant) but I still count as 1 person on the list. From what I read in the SOF , some SOF menbers who are also Peruflora customers only buy 1 or 2 small flasks.
On the other hand I bought only 1/2 flask from Glen (which supposes only have 10, but I got almost 15 plants in there, very generous. I still hate myself for killing these plants) Therefore the number is not outrageously big.
-further more, if you look at the seedlings in the flasks that Stephen post for me, you see the hormone or what ever they use, made these seedlings produce sideshoots like crazy. What if they divide these into more plants.
If I have a lab and as good as some of the experts,no doubt I could get 150 plantlets from my 5 dalexandroii x pk. (hope I dont't kill them like the other ones. Please put in a support prayer for my plants)
-So far Mr Arias & Mr Manrique do not sell any pk plant . Only tiny seedling in flask. So their plants are not ripped out of the wild, nor deplete the pk site.

-I think, what people get upset down there is not even about pk, but the other species which everyone export the wild collected ones (I guess, including Mr. Arias). And from the letters, sounds like only 3 nurseries have permits to do this type of harvest (the number sounds too small to me, but that was what mention in the letter)
-In the end I agree with the last letter of Mr. Peter on the thought that the authority should have a well thought-out plan to benefit the poor local peoples.

The picture can be simplified to this:
Inrena:mean: :bowing: :bowing: :bowing: peruvian nurseries

lol that is some creative use of the smiles!!!!!:urock: :urock: :urock: :urock: :urock: :urock:

-So far Mr Arias & Mr Manrique do not sell any pk plant . Only tiny seedling in flask. So their plants are not ripped out of the wild, nor deplete the pk site.


I agree with what you are saying, but this is the statement from Peter Crozen's post that bothered me:

"The Moores are correct, it is impossible for the 352 full size orchid species, offered for sale by Arias today, to have been started from seeds in their laboratory that opened less than three years ago."

So that means that 352 pks were collected...not 5 as dictated by law...or am I reading this wrong? Maybe they mean species orchids in general, not just pk.

yes Teresa,

The letter means to say 352 different species of all other types of orchids in Peru is on the list that peruvian can not export unless they are produced by mean of vitro ( not 352 phrag kovachii).

Besides only Mr. Moore so far had state the fact that he bought some phrag kovachii before he received the permit for the 5 legal allotment. (the other 2 firms Peruflora & manriques do not issue any statement that they own any clone of kovachii beyond the legal 5.

Still, you understand the other part of the letter correctly: The letter says that it is impossible to produce so many species in vitro in 3 years time. That does sound like a lot.
I would have to refer to, and wait for any SOF member who own a lab and do this kind of work to voice opinion whether this is feasible or it is just hot air. One more thing , the letter says that 3 years from vitro does not produce the size of plant that these people export.:p

Thanks Charlie:p

Well, here's an interesting thing:
I happened upon this website: http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~aoc2006/
Scroll down and, if you have MS Excel, download the NEW LIST of kovachii flasks from Peruflora.
Is it really possible to have that many flasks from 5 legal plants? Or....

Well, here's an interesting thing:
I happened upon this website: http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~aoc2006/
Scroll down and, if you have MS Excel, download the NEW LIST of kovachii flasks from Peruflora.
Is it really possible to have that many flasks from 5 legal plants? Or....

They had amazing germination with those kovachii crosses! It sure is nice that they have perfected their lab is such a short period of time......

Phragfan & Bill

I check out that list. Most of those crosses or old .

If you look at the pictures that posted by Orchid limited for the older crosses when Mr. Fischer brought the flask back (the protocorm were quite small then) I admire Chuck Acker & The Fischer for doing such a good job of growing them.

The new ones that get released this year (2006) is quite small in plant size also. (I believe that is the case for Peruflora they release faster but smaller plants except the interspecies hybrids, says versus the same year release of Glen's pk. In all fairness I have to say that Glen pk species flask is bigger when release. You can check the picture on an old post by Stephen)

-Of the 11 so called new, only 9 crosses has kovachii in it. Out of those 9, 3 pod plants are wallissii, schlimii, & boisserianum so they only needs the pollen from pk, they can afford more mother plants from the other species .
The 6 crosses that using the pk as mother plant, you will notice that:
-the Tupac Amaru is used 3 times
-The Jewel once
-The Goliath once
-The Roseline once
You can see that in the past they used the Goliath as mother plant a lot more (it is the biggest flower they have).
Not this time. So either the Tupac Amaru spike more, w/ more flowers per spike, or bear more pods successfully than the other clones (because other then the very nice color, The Amaru is not a big flower) There is a definite change in the breeding strategy.
They may actually be able to accomplish these crosses, because the plants that Peruflora & Manriques collected are the biggest specimen back then ( someone says that they picked & chosen these plants by sizes) So I would anticipate a lot of new exciting crosses that will come out from Glen also.
Moreover, as soon as the second generation pk mature in the US, I am sure Chuck, Jerry, & Glen will do even more fancy crosses right in the USA.

By the way Orchid Limited does have a few of the new crosses.

It's impossible to have any certainty regarding these crosses. You would have to know how much seed was viable in each cross and how many flowers are available for pollination. My understanding is that kovachii holds one flower and sometimes two, so there are limitations on how many flowers are available.
Either the plants produce an amazing amount of seed, they are using more than just 5 plants or the seedlings aren't true to the description.

They have produced many flasks at high prices, and it would be tempting to find seed or other kovachii to use in crosses. There are limits on how much a plant can be used in breeding before it burns out. I could be wrong, perhaps they are producing flowers on multiple inflorescences.

It's impossible to have any certainty regarding these crosses. You would have to know how much seed was viable in each cross and how many flowers are available for pollination. My understanding is that kovachii holds one flower and sometimes two, so there are limitations on how many flowers are available.
Either the plants produce an amazing amount of seed, they are using more than just 5 plants or the seedlings aren't true to the description.

They have produced many flasks at high prices, and it would be tempting to find seed or other kovachii to use in crosses. There are limits on how much a plant can be used in breeding before it burns out. I could be wrong, perhaps they are producing flowers on multiple inflorescences.

I think the germination has to do with the medium formulae, right?
This is what I notice:
-Peruflora seedlings have the tendency of produce zillions of side shoots at the base & at leaves brackets. I "guess" this formulae also push the leaves to elongate fast to the point of being skinny( somehow I have an image of steroid athletes:p ) but not a lot of roots. I have no experience at all about flasking (but I could see a good flasker would be able to multiply these seedlings 20 to 30 times from each of the original seedling bought) I do not imply here that Peruflora doing this at all. We can not know the exact amount of seedlings produced by counting flasks & buyers' number. If more peoples buy the smaller flasks (and not the large sizes) like myself, Peru-flora may just transfer the seedlings from the big flask to the smaller sizes. (they would not leave the plants to be seating iddly in a few big flasks with no buyer, while the smaller size with 5 seedlings will be the hot-cake of the day, right?

-Glen's seedlings on the other hand do not push out multiples growths at the expense of the roots. His seedlings have a good roots system & big fat roots while in flask. the size of the seedlings in flask also different, as well as leaves with more width.

Now the part about other pk, it may very well be true that Peruflora & Manriques are not the only one who have pk (however,they are the ones that have the legal pk) Mr Moore's letter said that he has a few hundred?Other peoples' pk may be even be superior to the legal ones. But you would not want to have anything to do with that, no?
I quote this from another forum:
In 2005, Sr. Valle was about to apply for an INRENA license that would legalize his orchid nursery. It is said that Valle's son Jhon is an excellent orchid grower and flasker. In Peru, nothing remains a secret for very long, including Sr. Valle's intentions to register his nursery. It is believed this led to INRENA receiving aSr. Valle then got a visit from INRENA officials, who happened to be on another mission, nearby, doing field studies in the Pk habitat. More than 70 Pk plants were seized from Sr. Valle. More than 60 of these were detained by INRENA to Sr. Valle's nursery, with the stipulation that these could not be sold and not be used. These 60 plus seized plants were not pollinated by Peruflora; as a matter of fact they were not pollinated by anyone, in compliance with INRENA orders.
complaint about Sr. Valle's illegal Pk's, for it is a fact that illegal Pk’s can be found in nearly every collection in that part of Peru.
So we can conclude that other peoples do have more than 1 pk in Peru.
:bananadance: :bananadance: :woohoo: :bananadance: :bananadance:
Sorry, I just love these Banana Dance so much, I have to use it

So do we conclude that Peruflora is using illegal Pk for their flasks?

Another possibility: If the growth habits are that different between Peruflora's Pk and Manrique's Pk seedlings, is it possible that one or the other aren't truly Pk?

phragfan
The answer can be found when the imported pk grow bigger, one will surely can tell the different in the vegetative habit of the plants. Even from those examples in situ & at Mr Manrique's nursery photos, the plants & leaves look quite different from other phrags (And even from an unexpert pair of eyes like mine)
So far Chuck & Mr. Fischer seem to be quite confident that the leaves look like kovachii (remember, Orchid Limited replate the seedlings to a better medium. so their plants no longer look skinny like mine, and they do not make sideshoots either. I am sure Mr.Fischer judgement is much better than mine.
Glen is absolutely certain about his stock, I believe in Glen 100% too.
Now whether or not they use the 5 clones allowed, I think it can be tell in the future also, because they made the selfing of certain clones like:
-Tupac Amaru
-Roseline
-Jewel
The majority of selfing seedlings probably look quite close to the lone parent (again, I am not expert on orchid hybriding either, hopefully someone like Tom & Jason, other SOF members etc.. with expertise in the field can chime in) than say the out-crossing where the two parents are different.
If you look at the brochures these 3 clones are absolutely far apart in colors & sizes. So once the selfing -seedlings flower, we can say for sure whether someone misbehave or not.
I do feel badly for Mr. Moore though, he invested a lot of money in Peru.
I also feel bad for other nurseries who have their pks confisticated. As long as they register their plants with INRENA before, they should be allowed to keep them, no?
In fact Peru should license more than three nurseries, and more than 15 legal plants. to keep the genetic variations pool large enough, in case they want to replenish the wild.

If you look at the brochures these 3 clones are absolutely far apart in colors & sizes.
Are you talking about the flowers, Hien?
If so, it is my understanding that the color of kovachii is quite consistent. The colors we see on photos of different flowers has to do with when/how the flowers were photographed, not the actual flower colors. You might be surprised at how different even film cameras can record the same color, much less digital cameras.
So once the selfing -seedlings flower, we can say for sure whether someone misbehave or not.
This was posted on another forum this morning:
"... It is impossible to have that many flasks from just 5 plants.
I happen to know for a fact that the five Pk plants were divided into so many pieces that at least for one season already these did not produce any seeds.

Contrary to what some folks have said ..., these are not old Pk flask lists. Old crosses, yes, but new lists. I have been aware of the four lists from the day these were published on the Australian Orchid Council website.

The new lists have the date clealy marked on them as 2006. The Conference was real, the Pk vendor was in Australia and selling July 19-23, 2006."

Just to clarify: I am not questioning the integrity of anyone who purchased from Peruflora. My questioning is about Peruflora itself.

Phragfan
Oh, I kind of expect them to be different in the way similar to what one would find in other types of orchids. What a disappointment if it turn out otherwise, no?
I heard that there are peoples who concentrate their collection to just varieties of just one species (If my memory is not too bad, It must be in one of the AOS magazines, like one species of cattleya, but dozens of varieties with all the shades & forms in between)
What do the experts who were at the sites conclude on this. Did Mr. Koopowitz was at one of the sites when it were full of p. kovachiis. What about Mr. Moore, does he have any clone that look different? It would be nice if peoples who amassed the wild pk could comment on this topic (:p but they are all illegal, so the owners could not tell us anything, what a shame and what a pity!! don't you agree?:p )

Too bad, the p.kovachii sites were clean out, and nobody has the chance to take pictures of the whole colony, so we can see whether there is any variation or they all exact the same. Even if those 15 clones that the 3 nurseries are the same color & the photos just happen to be different stage of opening.
Somehow , I have the feeling there must be some different looking clones hidden in Japan, Germany, China etc...maybe even in the USA (the ones not descendants of the Manriques & Peruflora clones)

Maybe my second assumption that the old crosses are the ones left over from the earlier year batch is erroneous. (I was going to say that it is better to buy the old cross instead of the new ones because the seedlings would be bigger) However, If they are all new products of the same year, then it is a wash and doesn't matter which cross you buy then.:p

However, If they are all new products of the same year, then it is a wash and doesn't matter which cross you buy then.:p
...Assuming that they are indeed kovachii.
As you noted earlier, time will tell.

It was Glen Decker who said that the color of kovachii is essentially the same with all the plants. Differences in color can be attributed to age of flowers as well as type of film used, processing/printing/color memory/monitor calibration -- just to name a few. There is probably some variation in color, but not the wide differences we've seen posted.

I'd like to eat my words -- it would be great to have kovachii in all kinds of colors.

I do agree that it is more than unfortunate that their habitat has been wiped clean -- at least those that are know. We can only hope there are more undiscovered.

I think if they leave those sites alone for some years, the pk may repopulate itself.
Is this the case of phrag besseae in situ nowadays. Some expert says in another forum that it is a common sight now. Does anybody know whether this observation is true or not?