'superwheat' that boosts crops by 30%

Page 1 of 3  

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323538/The-superwheat-boosts-cr ops-30--Creation-new-grain-hailed-biggest-advance-farming-generation.html

The Cambridge-based team selected early wheat and grass varieties from seed banks across the globe and cross-bred them for maximum potential.
'This year our crop had a 30 per cent better yields, which took us a bit by surprise,' said Dr Barsby. 'Although to is in the early stages, we are very optimistic.
'In the past decade, our wheat yield had started to plateau off and we needed another increase in productivity to meet demand.
'It is about finding novel characteristics from the original ancestors of wheat and breeding them to make them as productive and resilient as possible.' Dr Barsby said the technique involved breeding selected species of wheat and grass, and that no GM-technology was involved.
'You can sometimes become too focused on one technology like GM and not look at other techniques that can bring you similar success,' she said.
Over the next 50 years, the world needs to grow more wheat than has been produced in the 10,000 years since agriculture began.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote: ...
wonder how much nutrients this puppy sucks from the soil?
it's gotta come from somewhere...
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No report on how much nutrient it gives, either. However, it would be a stretch to say it is worse than what we are already being given. At least it won't have the potential allergens that are produced from GMOs.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 11:21:35 PM UTC-6, Billy wrote:

Who on Earth came up with that BS statement "potential allergens that are produced from GMOs"?...sounds like quite a stretch IME.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm just a spectator. What do you know?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:18:40 PM UTC-6, Billy wrote:

Why would GMOs have any more propensity for causing allergic reactions than non-GMOs?
Blaming GMOs for everything that is bad for mankind and/or other animal life seems to be a common trait amongst critics of GMO production ...purely guess-work and conjecture.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote:

Did you see the part of the ref that you were given that describes how the scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not normally expressed? So you can end up with an allergen (among other things) being produced in the GM version not produced by the wild ancestor.

If anybody here had done that they ought to spanked and sent to bed with no dinner. Who was it? Personally I can think of quite a few bad things for mankind not related to GMOs.

Who here guessed? Who conjectured? Could be that stupid Homo paleas. He's the bloke who has trouble staying on his feet, gets knocked down all the time.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gene transfer and cauliflower mosaic virus promoter 35S activity in mammalian cells. Paparini A, Romano-Spica V. Source
IUSM, University Institute for Movement Science, Department of Health Sciences, Rome, Italy. Abstract
The cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (CaMV35s) is extensively used in genetically modified crops for human and animal consumption. Horizontal gene transfer is attracting particular attention, in light of experimental reports, showing the presence of dietary DNA into animal tissues. Health implications may derive from possible activities of the heterologous promoter in mammalian cells after integration in the host genome. To evaluate this hypothesis, in vivo and in vitro experiments were performed using GFP as reporter gene. Recombinant plasmid DNA was fed to Balb/c mice and searched in several tissues by PCR amplification. The activity of the plant virus promoter was assessed by RT-PCR and fluorescence microscopy after liposome-mediated transfection of murine gonadic cells. Obtained data did not highlight evidences of dietary DNA transfer in mice. No CaMV35s transcriptional activity was detected in this experimental model. These findings emphasize the need for further studies and standardized methods.
PMID: 16753962 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Funny ;O))

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, I gave an inadequate response. I was in a rush, because I had to make dinner, but I'm back now. Try: <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060930094033.htm or <http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/08/efsa-assesses-allergens-in-gmos/ or <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074761303001158 or <http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/SeedsDeception.pdf or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai> In 1995 rpd Pusztai began research on genetically modified potatoes containing the GNA lectin gene from the snowdrop plant.[2] His group fed rats on raw and cooked genetically modified potatoes, using Desiree Red potatoes as controls. In 1998 rpd Pusztai said in an interview on a World in Action programme that his group had observed damage to the intestines and immune systems of rats fed the genetically modified potatoes. He also said, "If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it," and that, "I find it's very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs."[4]
Again, I am but a spectator. What do you know of this?
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/5/2013 11:33 PM, Roy wrote:

Someone speculated that development of non-flatulent cows to cut down on green house gases may cause the end of the world. Who knows?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious cult that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They will spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science. Interesting cult. Faith based science!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the responses I have seen are referring to scientific studies not religious texts. You might want to reply with some facts instead of a broad generalisation with no obvious evidence. So far you are exhibiting the very thing you criticise.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"

Sure.

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops, whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge, some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that makes you boooooooring.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your hubris runneth over. We poor gardeners are a varied lot, and you may be surprised what you can learn here.
If you care to explain why GMOs are innocuous, please do so, but don't presume to be above reproach as authority needs to be questioned. So far you haven't made any scientific arguments in favor of GMOs, until you do I'll presume that you have none.
Your "content free" post hasn't added anything to the conversation, except to raise the specter of Lysenkoism. Please explain the influence of splicosomes on "epigenetic regualtion of gene expression" (DNA methylation, or histone modifications?). Or was this term used stochastically to obfuscate the lack of content in your post?
More to the point, you haven't refuted the work of Dr. Arpad Pusztai. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai>
You haven't refuted the work of Jeffrey M. Smith. <(Amazon.com product link shortened) dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid70652274&sr=1-1&keywords=S eeds+of+deception>
You haven't refuted the concerns of the Union of Concerned Scientists. <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genet ic-engineering/>
As for not communicating with, or educating <http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm that is a similar approach taken by the Church in the Middle Ages, whereas today's Catholics accept a heliocentric solar system, and Evolution.
Which will it be, a reasoned conversation, or crickets?
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote: ...

i'll bet on the crickets...
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
songbird wrote:

It seems we have heard the last of this. Crickets 4, reason 0. Bird wins the doll.
D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hare-Scott wrote:

whee! :)
"i'll call him George..."
additional info via a mutual friend:
-----
One out of four people in the U.S. reports having some type of food allergy.21 Genetically engineered ingredients make matters worse in two ways.
First, shuffling genes among species causes an allergen, for example a nut allergen, to end up in food we've always thought is safe. Take what happened in 1996 when university researchers decided to check out a new genetically engineered soybean created by the Pioneer Hi-Bred International. The soybeans were engineered to contain a single gene from a Brazil nut. Since it's well known in the medical community that nuts can cause allergic reactions in people, the scientist decided to find out whether or not this single gene in the soybeans could cause a response in folks who were allergic to Brazil nuts. Incredibly, allergic reactions did occur from this one gene, as reported that year in the New England Journal of Medicine.22 For people who are fatally allergic to Brazil nuts, eating this genetically engineered soy could be lethal. It's important to remember that this allergy test was done independently and at the discretion of these scientists; it was not required by any regulatory agency of the U.S.
The second danger is that genetically engineering foods can provoke an entirely new set of allergies. Here's how it works: The genetic packages transferred into the cell encode a number of novel proteins unfamiliar to the host plant. The resulting combination of a foreign gene and the genetic material of the plant can set off an allergic reaction. For example, in November 2005, Australian researchers found that peas, genetically engineered with a bean gene, triggered allergic reactions in research animals.23 This was a surprise because the new gene in the peas was for a protein found in beans that does not cause any allergic reactions at all. How could these identical genes, one causing no allergies and the other causing allergies when engineered into a pea, have such a different impact? The same gene can produce slight variations of proteins in different plants-even in closely related plants. In the pea, the protein encoded by the gene was modified in a slightly different way than in the bean, and the new form of this protein was allergcnic. So even when working with identical genes, the very process of genetic engineering can turn a non-allergenic gene into an allergenic one-a frightening prospect. Yet, this new finding should not come as a surprise. More than a decade ago, PDA scientists warned repeatedly that genetic engineering could "produce a new protein allergen," and they've demanded long-term testing for this hazard. Meanwhile, leaders at the FDA continue to ignore science and refuse to require solid testing of genetically engineered foods, exposing the public to these new and hidden allergens.
-----
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:20:56 -0700, Billy wrote:

BillyBong a 30% crop boost isn't nothing. BMOs are only sensible. The Obama government should mandate that everyone (even gardeners) use them the way Europe has mandated that ANY seeds used by ANYONE be approved by the authorities. It's only sensible. Apparently you'd rather see Third world children dying of starvation than give up your anti-GMO religion!
Only liberal TV actresses growing ricin to mail to the president would be against commonsense regulations like these. It's for the children.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You didn't bother reading the article cited. GMO was NOT used. THAT is the whole point of the article that Billy posted. There is NO need for GMOs because the 30% ioncrese in yield was achieved WITHOUT using GMO..
The

Strawman. Obama and his administration had got to do with the research undertaken in Britain on non-GMO wheat as you would know if you'd read the cite.

Europe has done so such thing. In fact quite the reverse. It has very stringent regulations on GMO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union
It's only sensible. Apparently you'd rather see Third

Another strawman. No-one except you ahs suggested any such thing and neither would you if you wanted to sound like you'd read the thread and the cite provided.

Strawman. And one has an edge of hysteria to it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:37:05 +1000, Farm1 wrote:

Don't you care about feeding the world? I think some of us have a right to not have our GMO food polluted by all the organic gardeners our there slipping through the patent infringement loopholes.
Government regulation of GMO seed for EVERYONE will stop the patent infringements and start the world on a path to sensible regulation of unapproved consumables!
With children starving all over the world now is not the time to start talking about freedom to grow private hoards of unregulated food.
Every year 15 million children die of hunger and you don't want government regulation to mandate sensible rules for GMO seed?
http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.