I suspect that is a historical reference, a number of characteristics needed to be found and selected to breed modern wheat from its forebears. IIRC another was a mutation that allowed the heads to hold their seed when ripe instead of spraying it all over, you cannot harvest much if the heads are empty and the seed is on the ground.
D
Apropos of nothing that I wrote if that is the case......
a number of characteristics needed
Indeed. But none of that relates to the trial results for the superwheat.
true, i was conflating the gain from earlier wheat cross-breeding efforts with this.
it may, because the researchers in the original article say they still have to cross it with modern varieties. once they do that will they lose the gain? i dunno and i doubt they know either until it's attempted.
however, this doesn't get back to my other point which is how much nutrients this new grain will suck from the topsoil. if it becomes like corn, such a heavy feeder that it requires huge amounts of inputs then i don't think it's a gain for long-term sustainable agriculture.
songbird
Hmmm. I've just reread the article (again - I'm begining to wonder how many times I've reread it) and it's a wee bit ambiguous on that score.
Right at the beginning it says "researchers have cross-bred modern wheat seed with ancient wild grass" whereas later in the article it says that the team "selected early wheat and grass varieties from seed banks across the globe and cross-bred them for maximum potential." Rather different info there innit?
Well given the plateauing of production that followed further down the years after the breeding of modern wheat, it'd seem to be more logical that the gains and plateauing would be follow along those lines TMWOT. But of course you are right - no-one will know until it's done and tested.
Corn is indeed a heavy feeder. Given the wheat growing lands here in Oz, I'd be very surprised if this new wheat came within a bull's roar of having the nutritional needs of corn. The new superwheat could end up being a greedy beast, but I think you are anticipating problems before there is any need to do so at this stage.
This trial seems to have slipped under the radar when it comes to any form of discussion other than in this group. I think that's a shame given the potential.
Farm1, the main thrust of this article is that we are running out of the plant diversity that we need to create new resistant plants. See for an over view of the problem.
Wheat has experienced a 96 percent yield increase in the developing world from 1970-1994. This yield increase was achieved with new wheats, called semi-dwarf varieties, which grow to just half the height of older wheats, but are far more productive. Rather than using up valuable energy producing the long stems of the older varieties, semi-dwarf wheats send more energy to the plant's spikes, resulting in more grain per plant and increased output per unit of cultivated land area. =======
The development of high yield varieties meant that only a few species of say, rice started being grown. In India for example there were about
30,000 rice varieties prior to the Green Revolution, today there are around ten - all the most productive types. By having this increased crop homogeneity though the types were more prone to disease and pests because there were not enough varieties to fight them off. In order to protect these few varieties then, pesticide use grew as well. =====This is also the problem with wheat, because domestication has eroded wheat diversity and the possibilities for improvement from within the current wheat germplasm pool are reaching their limit.
Biodiversity The spread of Green Revolution agriculture affected both agricultural biodiversity and wild biodiversity.[40] There is little disagreement that the Green Revolution acted to reduce agricultural biodiversity, as it relied on just a few high-yield varieties of each crop. This has led to concerns about the susceptibility of a food supply to pathogens that cannot be controlled by agrochemicals, as well as the permanent loss of many valuable genetic traits bred into traditional varieties over thousands of years.
The National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) in Cambridge has recreated the original rare cross between an ancient wheat and wild grass species that happened in the Middle East 10,000 years ago.
The resulting hybrid plants produce the 'synthetic' seed which is then used in crossing programmes with current varieties.
Senior plant breeder Dr Phil Howell says: "Based on early-stage trials, we're confident that the performance gains and level of potentially valuable variation observed, through this novel step of re-synthesising the original wheat plant, points to a major transformation in the wheat improvement process. Yield increases of up to 30% have been produced in early field trials, despite the past few years being cold, wet seasons where lack of sunlight depressed yield. ====
It seems to be all about getting a new bag of tricks to work with in creating new resistant cultivars.
As far as corn is concerned, my understanding is that corn is a C4 plant, like millet, and uses nutrients very efficiently. IIRC, typical mono-culture corn fields have poor soils that are ripped with ammonia as a fertilizer.
While agricultural output increased as a result of the Green Revolution, the energy input to produce a crop has increased faster, so that the ratio of crops produced to energy input has decreased over time. Green Revolution techniques also heavily rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, some of which must be developed from fossil fuels, making agriculture increasingly reliant on petroleum products. Proponents of the Peak Oil theory fear that a future decline in oil and gas production would lead to a decline in food production or even a Malthusian catastrophe.
In the Philippines the introduction of heavy pesticides to rice production, in the early part of the Green Revolution, poisoned and killed off fish and weedy green vegetables that traditionally coexisted in rice paddies. These were nutritious food sources for many poor Filipino farmers prior to the introduction of pesticides, further impacting the diets of locals.
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) [formerly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research] is a strategic alliance that unites organizations involved in agricultural research for sustainable development with the donors that fund such work. Once the harbinger of green revolution that swept through parts of Asia and Latin America in the early 1970s and 1980s, is in an advanced stage of decay. In a desperate effort to survive against all odds, the 16 international agricultural research centers that operate under the aegis of CGIAR, have therefore donned a new role - to serve as an agricultural research outsource for the multinational corporations.
No wonder, after the initial thrust through the dwarf wheat and rice varieties, CGIAR's research has failed to meet its underlying objectives of reducing poverty, improving food security and nutrition, and alleviate pressures on fragile natural resources. It is not aimed anymore at addressing the founding principles and research obligations. If the newly constituted Science Council is an indication, the entire exercise is to see how the CGIAR research centers, with an outlay of US $ 400 million, can be transformed to serve the interests of the biotechnology industry. We will see more and more scientific collaborations in the days ahead that will unabashedly be headed (or is it deputation?) by ex-employees of the biotechnology giants.
Even within the World Bank there has been enough criticism of his style of functioning (one report brings it out loudly) but who cares. Ian Johnson is only implementing the Bank's agenda of pushing the farmers in developing countries out of agriculture so as to pave the way for agribusiness industry. As long as the Bank is happy, all criticism has to be ignored.
"Food security" and sustainable farming systems of the world's estimated three billion farmers has therefore been very conveniently sacrificed for ensuring 'profit security' of a handful of private companies. ======
Let's all wish National Institute of Agricultural Botany good luck.
I've found no comparisons between nutrient levels in old vs new "green revolution" cultivars. If you find any, I would be most interested in seeing them.
I should have also noted that, for at least the present, their is no lack of food, no lack at all. The problem is that the food is priced beyond the means of the poor in order to make a profit.
i'd agree that the second and third paragraphs appear contradictory (2nd says "have" 3rd says "could").
i see it as being a challenge in many regards. it would be great to have very productive crops that don't suck huge amounts of water, nutrients, and ruin the topsoil.
i try to think ahead of the curve as much as i can, if anything for the entertainment value to see later if i got anything right.
returning to the issue of limitations, a plant can only do so much, there are only so many photon-to- chloroplast-to-ATP molecule events that are going to happen in a unit area. and a cell can only switch on-and-off only so many genes. some gains might still be in the works for many years, but at some point in the future the limit will get hit.
perhaps it being non-GMO means it isn't a hot enough topic...
i'll be interested to see if anything comes of the research.
songbird
That is one of the major points of the trial. However there is no point in pretending that the other, and more stressed in your original cite, is about that 30% achievement in yield. (snip)
It's also about yield.
I haven't found any but then I haven't looked for any and I won't be bothering to look for any. Songbird is the one who expressed some concerns centring on the chance of wheat becoming a heavy feeder like corn. I doubt that would happen and think that Songbird is worrying unnecessarily.
Yield showed that it worked, but they don't know if there is an Achilles heel to the plant, yet. Yield is important, resistance to mold and mildew is important, cultivation parameters are important. Before you send a plant to market, it's important to know all of the above, and more.
This might be of interest and germane.
A tad verbose, but yeah, that is exactly the problem. Even a 100% increase in yield would be insignificant, if the wheat was susceptible to pathogens.
The development of high yield varieties meant that only a few species of say, rice started being grown. In India for example there were about
30,000 rice varieties prior to the Green Revolution, today there are around ten - all the most productive types. By having this increased crop homogeneity though the types were more prone to disease and pests because there were not enough varieties to fight them off.This is also the problem with wheat, because domestication has eroded wheat diversity and the possibilities for improvement from within the current wheat germplasm pool are reaching their limit.
The National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) in Cambridge has recreated the original rare cross between an ancient wheat and wild grass species that happened in the Middle East 10,000 years ago.
The resulting hybrid plants produce the 'synthetic' seed which is now used in crossing programmes with current varieties.
Senior plant breeder Dr Phil Howell says: "Based on early-stage trials, we're confident that the performance gains and level of potentially valuable variation observed, through this novel step of re-synthesising the original wheat plant, points to a major transformation in the wheat improvement process.
The winning wheat seeds will be the basis for the next dozen years of wheat production.
Like a poker player, Borlaug was aiming for a perfect set,
"a royal flush of resistance genes".
And like a poker player he was subject to the rules of chance. To increase those chances, he carried out a mind boggling 6,000 matings between different wheat varieties each year. That created tens of thousands of hopeful wheat progeny from which a few dozen were selected.
This is what National Institute of Agricultural Botany must also do so that the wheat is resistant to Septoria, Fusarium, and for the rust Ug99, among others.
A 50% increase in yield would be insufficient, if the wheat crop is vulnerable to a disease that will turn the yield to zero.
Give my condolences to the Mr. ;O)
It is not, but I am comfortable with it.
Cite please (as you are wont to ask). I've certainly never seen this assertion before.
That is quite clear.
What does onthe mean?
And very tired of ignorant religious based thinking destroying our world
Your dazzling display of illogic has taken my breath away! Still, once in a while you post something worth reading, and so a response may be worthwhile. I like bread and pasta made with wheat. Many people do. In fact wheat accounts for a rather large percentage of human food. If you are one who eats wheat, what will you do if (realistically when) the only bread available is GMO? ?"The other thing to bear in mind, said Akhunov, is that "the pathogen races are evolving very fast." Since the discovery of Ug99, another five or six derivative races have emerged, he said. So not only must the search for new resistance genes continue, he said, but also "we need to come up with faster ways of responding.""? Faith based fear is ignorant. Ignorance is a fatal flaw. This is a fight we cannot allow ignorance to win. Believe in your gods if you must, but at least try to understnd the science behind GMO in the absence of irrational fear.
Once again you are claiming the high ground saying your critics' arguments are based on faith. You again pretend to be speaking with the voice of evidence and rationality.
In this thread it is plain for anybody to see that you have not provided one focussed response but wasted our time with personal attacks, vague generalisations and misdirection on to new topics when you have failed to say anything useful about the topics already in front of us.
You consistently accuse others of your own vices.
'Abusive and pretentious' - spot on.
David
Walks like a troll, talks like a troll. Hmmmmmmm?
Rick Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT) 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!
------ Bill Rick, face it, you offer no facts, and seem to assert that just because they are religious, they are wrong. In fact, the article made no religious appeal, but simply drew attention to a non-GMO wheat that yielded 30% more that standard wheat.
Real science is based on facts, yet you offer none. You seem more interested in disproving that a non-GMO, can out produce a GMO. Scientists aren't partisan. When their views are colored by ego, or money they cease to be scientists. =======
RIck Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:05:44 -0400 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.
----- Bill You didn't show our alleged ignorance of DNA. Perhaps you would care to allay our fears by explaining how genetic and epigenetic regualtion [sic] of gene expression preclude the production of exotic proteins that may lead to allergic reactions. Sexual breeding plants isn't genetic manipulation. Polyploids happen naturally. Mutagenesis is a reason for concern, and fortunately, is mostly restricted to rice. ====
Rick Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO with the practices of a company named Monsanto. You sir are a woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin. You probably believe in JEEBUS. Good luck with that.
If you eat anything that is processed in any way (including food in most restaurants), you are consuming GMO. Why do you need a lable to tell you that? I certainly don't much care about labels, but find them pretty useless. What does the label "organic" tell you? Do you "believe" such food is safer or more nutritious than GMO? Why? You have no basis to compare, and not enough intellectual curiosity to investigate with an open mind. Boooooooring.
------- Bill Where to begin? Can you site a definition for "typical aged Usenet numbskulls"? What study are you referring to? Monsanto has a high profile because of its amount of lobbying, and it legal practices against farmers. What is your basis for characterizing David as ignorant, and deliberately uneducated. You must realize that such statements are the statements of trolls, or at best someone exceedingly adolescent. You know that you can't possible justify them without claiming to be omniscient and omnipresent. I'm pretty sure that is out of your league. What is GBUS?
As far as processed foods, the man is a gardener. His only weakness for processed food that is Bonne Maman Raspberry Jam which has no preservatives, no additives, no corn syrup, is sulfite-free and non-GMO. Personally, I rarely eat in restaurants, and I avoid processed foods. My bread is a locally baked baguette made from organic flour. The markets I go to either have organic sections for meat and produce, or the product is labeled with that information, and where it came from. Whether you find labels useful or not, is immaterial to me. As far as being able to compare I direct you to and and
You say its boring, but do you grow food? Do you know what fresh food tastes like? When your plants have a problem, what do you do, change the environment, or go for a chemical fix?
In any event, boring isn't an argument. It's an invitation to a flame war (not very good for arguments). ========
Bill Again, more combative words, and nothing to buttress your argument that GMO's are good for you.
You pose a hypothetical question about when GMO bread is the only bread to eat. Organic food is the fastest growing section of the market. GMOs don't yield more. GMOs are more resistant to some insects, but you will have to eat the toxins. GMOs have more resistance to glyphosate, which is toxic, and causing their targets plants to become resistant. I belie they are called Frankenweeds.
The is a more professional article on the Wheat Gene Sr35 at There is no need to use GMO technology as the gene come from wheat, but it will still need to go throughout he trial phase as would ant other new cultivar. The Wheat Gene Sr35 could be breed into the new high yielding wheat from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany to give higher yield and greater resistance to rusts. This can be done with normal sexual breeding, and seeds selected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This would be more marketable to countries that won't import GMO produce.
You might take your own advice. "Faith based fear is ignorant. Ignorance is a fatal flaw. This is a fight we cannot allow ignorance to win. Believe in your gods if you must, but at least try to understnd [sic] the science behind GMO in the absence of irrational fear.
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.
If you truly believed in GMOs, you would have no fear of double blind feeding trials for GMOs. This is the gold standard for determining the safety of food products. Yet, to date there have been no double blind feeding trials for GMOs. We, the American public are the guinea pigs.
If you can reason, fine, but another personal attack will just find you in my KF.
GMOs, or at least some of them "may" be just fine, but at the present we are consuming them on blind faith. Isn't that what you were against?
You may feel 'comfortable' with it, but based on what you have now written here a number of times, there is no evidence that you understand English well enough to respond cogently to what has been written.
I don't need to provide a cite given that I gave reasons for what I wrote. I will repeat it again though in greater detail since clearly you didn't understand what I wrote or why I wrote what I did the first time round.
In English, an idea expressed in one paragraph does not necessarily relate to any information contained in the following paragraph. It may do so, or it may not.
Bob's strawman comment in his first paragraph mentioned Roundup. Bob's second paragraph was about the testing of GMO and you shoving things in places where the sun doesn't shine. (I see that this suggestion by Bob about you shoving things seems to be emerging as a consensus amongst regular posters here).
Your response to Bob was that like "many typical aged Usenet numbskulls" he was equating "GMO with the practices of a company named Monsanto."
You have no evidence on which to make either of those claims. You don't know Bob's age. You concluded, that Bob had mixed up Roundup (a Monsanto product) with GMO. Bob may be a geriatric or he may be a really young dude with dreadlocks who hugs trees. Bob may have confused Roudnup with GMO but the only person who knows what Bob was thinking or how old Bob is at this stage is Bob.
You have no evidence for Bob's age or for your claim that Bob is confusing Monsanto with GMO.
You have a suspicion about Bob's age and you have a suspicion about Bob's confusing two different things. You expressed your suspicions as a certainty. Doing that is neither logical nor demonstrative of basic anaylitical skills.
It means you dont' know. You assume. You made statements based on your assumptions. I refuse to quote that ridiculous mantra about "to assume" and asses, but maybe someone will do so.
You are the ONLY person who has brought religion into the thread. Your first post mentioned 'faith based science'. Regardless of what you suspect are other poster's religious beliefs, you are not excused from presenting dispassionate or reasoned arguments to support your claims and nor does anyone else's reigion give you any license to be rude or abusive.
What specific comments did I make that you believe were illogical?
Still,
Attempted insult and lack of content noted.
Irrelevant and a strawman.
Where is your proof that anyone here is fearful, is ignorant or has any faith in anything?
Why don't you respond with information and reasoning rather than abuse, catch phrases and illogical assumptions?
Believe in your gods if you
I don't believe in any god. I am an atheist.
You might have been able to figure that out if you had either asked about my beliefs or had waited for evidence before leaping to erroneous conclusions.
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.