"songbird" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:

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.

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?

once they do that will they lose the gain? i dunno and
i doubt they know either until it's attempted.

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.

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.

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.