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).

it looks like most of those sorts of gains have
been accomplished and there are unlikely few more
aspects that will get another 30% increase.

now it is more likely increases will come via
making plants more tolerant of drought, salt, etc.,
but i think the best approach would be to go back
and look at perennial versions. if you no longer
have to plow and turn the soil each season and can
still get a crop, plus use the plants in a mixed
field of legumes, grains and various berries then
you've got the best of all worlds. just a little
selective weeding and spacing of plants needed.


It's a pity that the same mainstream press don't show as little interest in
Kim Kardashian and her handbags.

i see the name in the news all the time but i've
yet to see why the name is newsworthy. which perhaps
says more about me than anything.

the crickets still have it...


songbird

In article ,
Rick wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:47:16 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Rick wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


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.

David


Sure.
scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not
normally...

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.

You of course, love to eat food that has been sprayed with roundup.
Personally,
I am not.

There is plenty of evidence that GMO foods have been insuficiently tested
for
safety. I want very strongly to be able to know what I am eating, and
current US
law does not make that possible. So take you condescending dribble and shove
it
back where the sun don't shine.


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.

That is just a childish reaction. You don't even address the subject,
but attack the messenger instead.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Publ...octorsWarn/ind
ex.cfm

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food
On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)
called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community,
and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible
and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health
risks."[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term
independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated,
"Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM
food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging,
insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal
system.
======

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706
J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726 (C)Ivyspring International Publisher
Research Paper
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian
Health

We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ
system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized
genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are
present in food and feed in the world.

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with
GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects
were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary
detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects
were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and
haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of
hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to
each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic
consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.
=======

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...toxins-blood-9
3-unborn-babies.html#
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies
A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant
women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of
the chemicals.
======

http://www.gmwatch.org/component/con...m/12344-high-y
ield
Do we need GM? High yield
======

You should become familiar with the Pustai Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affair
=====

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agric...d-system/genet
ic-engineering/

Health and Environmental Risks

While the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated
or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of
health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may
produce new allergens and toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and
non-GE crops, or harm animals that consume them.

=====

Lastly, In case you didn't see it

ALLERGIC REACTIONS


Do you know what foods you react to? One out of four people in the U.S.
reports having some type of food allergy.21 Genetically engineered
ingredients make matters worse in two ways.

First, shuffling genes among species causes an allergen, for example a
nut allergen, to end up in food we've always thought is safe. Take what
happened in 1996 when university researchers decided to check out a new
genetically engineered soybean created by the Pioneer Hi-Bred
International. The soybeans were engineered to contain a single gene
from a Brazil nut. Since it's well known in the medical community that
nuts can cause allergic reactions in people, the scientist decided to
find out whether or not this single gene in the soybeans could cause a
response in folks who were allergic to Brazil nuts. Incredibly, allergic
reactions did occur from this one gene, as reported that year in the New
England Journal of Medicine.22 For people who are fatally allergic to
Brazil nuts, eating this genetically engineered soy could be lethal.
It's important to remember that this allergy test was done independently
and at the discretion of these scientists; it was not required by any
regulatory agency of the U.S.

The second danger is that genetically engineering foods can provoke an
entirely new set of allergies. Here's how it works: The genetic packages
transferred into the cell encode a number of novel proteins unfamiliar
to the host plant. The resulting combination of a foreign gene and the
genetic material of the plant can set off an allergic reaction. For
example, in November 2005, Australian researchers found that peas,
genetically engineered with a bean gene, triggered allergic reactions in
research animals.23 This was a surprise because the new gene in the peas
was for a protein found in beans that does not cause any allergic
reactions at all. How could these identical genes, one causing no
allergies and the other causing allergies when engineered into a pea,
have such a different impact? The same gene can produce slight
variations of proteins in different plants--even in closely related
plants. In the pea, the protein encoded by the gene was modified in a
slightly different way than in the bean, and the new form of this
protein was allergenic. So even when working with identical genes, the
very process of genetic engineering can turn a non-allergenic gene into
an allergenic one--a frightening prospect. Yet, this new finding should
not come as a surprise. More than a decade ago, PDA scientists warned
repeatedly that genetic engineering could "produce a new protein
allergen," and they've demanded long-term testing for this hazard.
Meanwhile, leaders at the FDA continue to ignore science and refuse to
require solid testing of genetically engineered foods, exposing the
public to these new and hidden allergens.
======

Please be better prepared, if you decide to enlighten us again.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

"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.

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.

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

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

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

"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.

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

In article
,
Billy wrote:

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.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj00vO48MTk
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

Farm1 wrote:
songbird wrote:
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?

i'd agree that the second and third paragraphs appear
contradictory (2nd says "have" 3rd says "could").


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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

"Billy" wrote in message
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.

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 seems to be all about getting a new bag of tricks to work with in
creating new resistant cultivars.

It's also about yield.

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 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.

"songbird" wrote in message
...
Farm1 wrote:
songbird wrote:
Farm1 wrote:

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.

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.

Yup. I suspect I'll be long dead before that happens though.

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.

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.

LOL. Well if it keeps you off the streets and means you dont mug little old
ladies then that I'm all for your continuation of such a hobby in your spare
moments

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.

Indeed.


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.

perhaps it being non-GMO means it isn't a hot
enough topic...

Could be. It's a surprise to me that it hasn't had better coverage. In
countries where most of the world's wheat is grown it seems to have been
totally ignored. Lets face it, the Brit's aren't well known for their wheat
production whereas both your o****ry and mine IS known for that..

i'll be interested to see if anything comes of
the research.

So will I.

In article , "Farm1"
wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
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.

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 seems to be all about getting a new bag of tricks to work with in
creating new resistant cultivars.

It's also about yield.
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.

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 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.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article wildbilly-A7A8AB.23214625062013@c-61-68-245-
199.per.connect.net.au, says...

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.


http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/black-harvest/

Farm1 wrote:
songbird wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
songbird wrote:
Farm1 wrote:

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.

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.

Yup. I suspect I'll be long dead before that happens though.

which is one of the major points made by Montgomery
in the book _Dirt_, that most erosion or soil problems
happen slowly enough that they aren't noticed that quickly.
only after generations... and by the time it has gotten
bad enough to affect yeilds it is much harder to fix.

with modern industrial farming methods the rate of
destruction has increased and more land is coming up
too salty or being washed away where a local person
can notice the change in a single lifetime.


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.

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.

LOL. Well if it keeps you off the streets and means you dont mug little old
ladies then that I'm all for your continuation of such a hobby in your spare
moments

i can't recall the last time i mugged a little
old lady... i did hug one a few days ago and
send her off with some strawberries and freezer
jam.


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.

Indeed.

corn is probably more close to that limit than
wheat at the moment (based upon what the soil is
telling us).


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.

perhaps it being non-GMO means it isn't a hot
enough topic...

Could be. It's a surprise to me that it hasn't had better coverage. In
countries where most of the world's wheat is grown it seems to have been
totally ignored. Lets face it, the Brit's aren't well known for their wheat
production whereas both your o****ry and mine IS known for that..

the big seed companies will pick it up if the
gains hold and then they'll add the RR GMO traits...


i'll be interested to see if anything comes of
the research.

So will I.


songbird