In article ,
phorbin wrote:

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/

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

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

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.

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.

Give my condolences to the Mr. ;O)
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

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

Rick wrote:
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.
http://bit.ly/12pqJYC
For those who wisely distrust mini-links:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...ighting-Genes/

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

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Rick wrote:
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.
http://bit.ly/12pqJYC
For those who wisely distrust mini-links:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...tle/Fungus-Fig
hting-Genes/

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

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

In article ,
Rick wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:59:57 +1000, "Farm1"
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
.. .
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 have no evidence to make that statement.

In his first sentence, Bob threw in a strawman that relates to a Monsanto
product. Bob then started a new paragraph that mentioned GMO.

Even if English is not your first language,
It is not, but I am comfortable with it.
you should realise that unless
or until Bob conjoins the two thoughts in one sentence then you are leaping
to a conclusion for which you have no evidence.
Cite please (as you are wont to ask). I've certainly never seen this
assertion before.
Bob may very well confused
That is quite clear.
about the two but until you have more evidence to confirm bob's thoughts ont
he subject you can't logically make the claims that you have done.

What does onthe mean?
You sir are a
woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin.

You are abusive and pretentious.
And very tired of ignorant religious based thinking destroying our
world
You don't demonstrate logic or simple
analytical skills.

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.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
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
http://www.agricultureinformation.co...ng/18027-organ
ic-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...toxins-blood-9
3-unborn-babies.html#
and
http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Nutritional_Content_of_Organic_Food

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).
========


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.
http://bit.ly/12pqJYC
For those who wisely distrust mini-links:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...e/Fungus-Fight
ing-Genes/
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
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-resistance-gene-ug99-wheat-stem.html#nRlv
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai

You haven't refuted the work of Jeffrey M. Smith.
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370652274&sr=1-1&keywords=S
eeds+of+deception

You haven't refuted the concerns of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agric...d-system/genet
ic-engineering/

As for not communicating with, or educating
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm
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?
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

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

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:59:57 +1000, "Farm1"
wrote:
"Rick" wrote in message
. ..
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 have no evidence to make that statement.

In his first sentence, Bob threw in a strawman that relates to a Monsanto
product. Bob then started a new paragraph that mentioned GMO.

Even if English is not your first language,

It is not, but I am comfortable with it.

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.

you should realise that unless
or until Bob conjoins the two thoughts in one sentence then you are
leaping
to a conclusion for which you have no evidence.

Cite please (as you are wont to ask). I've certainly never seen this
assertion before.

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.

Bob may very well confused
That is quite clear.
about the two but until you have more evidence to confirm bob's thoughts
ont
he subject you can't logically make the claims that you have done.

What does onthe mean?

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 sir are a
woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin.

You are abusive and pretentious.

And very tired of ignorant religious based thinking destroying our
world

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.

You don't demonstrate logic or simple
analytical skills.


Your dazzling display of illogic has taken my breath away!

What specific comments did I make that you believe were illogical?

Still,
once in a while you post something worth reading, and so a response
may be worthwhile.

Attempted insult and lack of content noted.

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?

Irrelevant and a strawman.

."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.

Where is your proof that anyone here is fearful, is ignorant or has any
faith in anything?

Ignorance is a fatal flaw. This is a
fight we cannot allow ignorance to win.

Why don't you respond with information and reasoning rather than abuse,
catch phrases and illogical assumptions?

Believe in your gods if you
must, but at least try to understnd the science behind GMO in the
absence of irrational fear.

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.