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.
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.
no idea where it started, but people wonder about what/how many fragments of DNA are caused by GM techniques that are not caused by more normal plant breeding methods.
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.
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.
Sorry, I gave an inadequate response. I was in a rush, because I had to make dinner, but I'm back now. Try: or or or or In 1995 Árpád 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 Árpád 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?
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.
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!
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.
That may very well be so, but this time they seem to be on the side of the angels, uh, so to speak. Whether they just got lucky, or were divinely inspired they are refering to a very important matter.
And yes, it is taken from the notoriously liberal Huffington Post, and was written by Jeffery Smith, a prominent anti-GMO advocate who wrote the book "Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating" by Jeffrey M. Smith (Available at a library near you.)
You really should look up Dr. Arpad Pusztai.
Pusztai's experiment was eventually published as a letter in The Lancet in 1999.[9] Because of the controversial nature of his research the letter was reviewed by six reviewers - three times the usual number. One publicly opposed the letter, another thought it was flawed, but wanted it published "to avoid suspicions of a conspiracy against Pusztai and to give colleagues a chance to see the data for themselves," while the other four raised questions that were addressed by the authors.[10] The letter reported significant differences between the thickness of the gut epithelium of rats fed genetically modified potatoes, compared to those fed the control diet.[9]
GMOs may turn out to be totally innocuous. Americans are basically the test animals to determine GMOs safety as food products. There are 2 types of poisoning, one is acute, where you get struck down as if by a bolt of lightening, and the other is chronic poisoning where a small amount of poison is ingested over a long period of time and may result in cancer, or some other withering away, idiocentric diseases, as in allergies.
I don't care that you aren't worried, because I'm worried, and I don't like the idea of being a test animal. Monsanto, et al. are trying to shove GMOs down our throats. They should identify their products, and let people choose. If after a period of time people come to accept GMOs, fine, the general population will have been saved from unreasonable testing, but that isn't what GMO producers are doing.
No GMO has been produced that has a larger yield that "natural" cultivars> There may be corn that grows better with ammonia, but that is destroying the topsoil, and is of benefit only to ADM, and Cargill.
You will find a list of companies that use GMOs in their refined, prepared foods here:
Now you can support GMO products to your hearts content.
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.
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.
You haven't refuted the work of Jeffrey M. Smith.
You haven't refuted the concerns of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
As for not communicating with, or educating 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?
I don't see those examples of my religious behaviour yet. I don't see any facts to contradict the article under discussion. You have no idea of the level of my understanding of genetics so you make up an insult or two. You really need to do better than introducing a diversion with some ad hominem attacks, even simple gardeners can see through that.
Here is part of what I was referring to.
Advanced Studies Confirm New Allergen and Dangers in GMOs
In 2007, independent scientists finally published a holistic protein analysis of one GM crop, Monsanto's Mon 810 Bt corn, which had been fed to consumers for the previous 10 years.
Sure enough, due to, "the insertion of a single gene into a [corn] genome," 43 proteins were significantly increased or decreased.
"Moreover, transgenic plants reacted differentially to the same environmental conditions... supporting the hypothesis that they had a strongly rearranged genome after particle bombardment" by a gene gun. The authors acknowledged that gene gun insertion can cause, "deletion and extensive scrambling of inserted and chromosomal DNA." One of the changed proteins in the GM corn was gamma zein, "a well-known allergenic protein." That allergen was not found in the natural corn, however. The gene that produces gamma zein is normally shut off in corn. But somehow it was switched on in Monsanto's variety.
Please explain where this is wrong or where I misrepresented it. Since you are claiming expertise do explain why you introduced epigenetic inheritance and why my assumed ignorance of the concept would be relevant. If it is so important educate us poor igerant masses.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.