In article , "Farm1"
wrote:
"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.
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
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070201_corn
for an over view of the problem.
http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/press/wheat3.html
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.
=======
http://geography.about.com/od/global...reenrevolution.
htm
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
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.
http://www.niab.com/news_and_events/article/282
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
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.
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/devsh_cgiar.html
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.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg