Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
"songbird" wrote in message
...
Farm1 wrote:
...
Indeed biology is wondeful. It can still manage to produce
surprises by increases in yield of 30% but yet still manage to be
ignored by the mainstream press and provide so few hits on google.

much of the gain seemed to come from the short-
stalk breeding efforts (reduce stem length allows
the head/seeds to increase and the plant doesn't
fall over).

Do you have a cite about stem length? I haven't seen any reference
to stem length for the superwheat trial.

true, i was conflating the gain from earlier
wheat cross-breeding efforts with this.


I suspect that is a historical reference,

Apropos of nothing that I wrote if that is the case......

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.

Indeed. But none of that relates to the trial results for the superwheat.

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