Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bt pesticide resistance
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:24:57 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:09:54 GMT, Mooshie peas wrote: On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:30:28 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 05:48:09 GMT, "Moosh:}" wrote: On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 06:18:46 +0100, Oz posted: Someone wrote: They fed resistant larvae of the diamondback moth - an increasingly troublesome pest in the southern US and in the tropics - on normal cabbage leaves and ones that had been treated with a Bt toxin. The larvae eating the treated leaves grew much faster and bigger - with a 56 per cent higher growth rate. .. Plants attacked by pests will elevate their toxin levels as a response. If the untreated plants were under attack (or their neighbours were) then they would increase their toxin level. .. It amazed me that such a tiny amount of one protein could produce such growth differences. Your explanation of growth inhibition from a predated crop certainly fits. It doesn't fit or explain anything at all, since the same cabbage leaf material was fed in all treatment groups in the experiment. The researchers grew a single cabbage crop, cut discs from its leaves, and fed the discs to different groups of larvae kept in petri dishes, with or without Bt toxin fortification. You obviously have the advantage of reading the full paper. Care to share? So how do you explain the marked growth increase from this tiny amount of one protein? You mean the 56% increase? It is beyond me where the authors get that particular figure from. On the face of it the data shows a growth rate increase of only about 30 %, and I would be wary to accept even that. The main observation in the experiment IMO is that feeding BT fortified substrate (10ppm) to larvae, re-selected to yield high Bt resistance (LC50~200 ppm), increased their mean pupae weight significantly - about 20% - relative to feeding them non-BT fortified substrate -- while leaving their time to pupation unchanged or perhaps a bit shorter. Has the experiment been replicated? I don't know, Jack. You can ask the authors if they are working on that or something similar, email: h dot cerda at ic dot ac dot uk So how are you placing so much weight on this paper as to dismiss out of hand Oz's hypothesis? Without replication, this paper should be put on the "rubbish" spike "pending". BTW, have you heard of spam bots that can translate "dot" to "." and "at" to "@" and close up the spaces? If not, perhaps we should wait until the attempt has been made? Funny you did not get that thought while you and Oz were happily explaining the findings. You presume too much. The paper is out of my financial means (and I presume Oz is not willing to spend the required sum on the full paper) And we were merely "hypothesising" and wondering from the brief details we had seen. Even you can't explain the findings, having apparently read it. Boy, you couldn't even wait until you'd read the article :-) To discuss the findings that were mentioned on this group? Are you chronically constipated by any chance? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
PROMISING OUTLOOK FOR FUSARIUM WILT RESISTANCE IN PEAS | sci.agriculture | |||
Farmers likely to shy away from Bt cotton - Unhappy over low bollworm resistance | sci.agriculture | |||
Farmers likely to shy away from Bt cotton — Unhappy over low bollworm resistance | sci.agriculture | |||
[Fwd: Widely Used Crop Herbicide Is Losing Weed Resistance] | sci.agriculture | |||
Farmers likely to shy away from Bt cotton — Unhappy over low bollworm resistance | sci.agriculture |