I always figured we were just better at cooking them than our parents (see: cut them in half and roast them vs boil them) but it wouldn't surprise me if they'd also been selectively bred for sweetness as well.

edit: just saw someone else mention they'd been bred for a less challenging flavour. neat I think.

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They've been bred for flavour for what, 4000 years now?

[–] came_apart_at_Kmart@hexbear.net 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

they were bred for sustinence, flavor, and general survivability pre-modernity, but the demands and logic of large, commercial production in the 20th century presented plant breeders with a series of entirely novel demands, some extreme: high density plantings, early yield/fast growth, shelf stability, response to fertility/irrigation, etc.

the better tasting lines of post-1990 involved reaching back into earlier developed lines to cross them into modern, high yield lines.

and a "high yield" trait is a moving target that changes over time as diseases and other biological pressures are constantly evolving to overcome a plant's defenses to hijack it before we have a chance to harvest and eat it.

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 1 points 9 hours ago

I can always count on hexbear to educate me further. Thank you!

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 2 points 21 hours ago

a less challenging flavour

what a bizarre way to spell "dogshit"

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago

I had a friend once assure me that they had been bred to be sweeter. Made sense to me so now I repeat it haha.