In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 11:20:51 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
And they cheat by trapsing them from northern to southern hemisphere
and back every 6 months to get two summer growing seasons per year
to build stocks. That is done under the guise of `field testing'.

A small company takes the profits and the public the risks.

Please give an example of company profits derived from a product that
the market doesn't want.

As quite frequently it is hard to see the relation of your statements to
what you are supposedly replying to.

Well back into the 1990s seed companies developing GM crops were taking
them to New Zealand and other southern hemisphere countries to increase
stocks more quickly from the post transformation stage up to amounts they
could release commercially. Corn and rape came to New Zealand. I
complained about the small separation requirements, insufficient I thought
to prevent pollen transferring genes. New Zealand has subsequently had GM
corn pollution. Do the genes of the corn pollution here indicate that it
did not come from those early `field tests'?

The companies doing the seed multiplication were getting paid, but the
public was taking the risk.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

This misunderstanding is based on the assumption that the seed
developer has achieved the goal as soon as they know the gene and can
deliver it into the plant, where as conventional breeding can take
generations to achieve a goal because of the need to eliminate
undesirable traits.

So can yo give us an example of a trait that was brought about quickly
by conventional breading, and a similar trait that was delayed by GM?

Why should I. The contention above, which you are apparently reacting
to, may be true whether or not I can give you such an example.

Fact: After fifteen years of research and development
experience, it has become apparent that genetic modification can
increase development time.

Development time of what?

Why ask, it is quite clear from the context.

Have two identical traits been developed by
conventional and GM techniques so this comparison that you claim can
be made?

Now, I should say, I am not the originator of any claim made around
here. I am quoting almost verbatim from the response of Novartis
Australasia to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Primary Industries and Regional Services' invitation for submissions
to the Inquiry into Primary Producer Access to Gene Technology.

It was apparently important to Novartis to let the committee know that
in their experience as a major global seed developer, shortened
development time of new varieties is not generally among the benefits
offered by GM technology -- and that consequently claims of short
development time for GM seeds should not be used to promote it.

The necessary laboratory work is
complementary to, not a substitute for field breeding work.
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 11:20:51 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
And they cheat by trapsing them from northern to southern hemisphere
and back every 6 months to get two summer growing seasons per year
to build stocks. That is done under the guise of `field testing'.

A small company takes the profits and the public the risks.

Please give an example of company profits derived from a product that
the market doesn't want.

As quite frequently it is hard to see the relation of your statements to
what you are supposedly replying to.

Well back into the 1990s seed companies developing GM crops were taking
them to New Zealand and other southern hemisphere countries to increase
stocks more quickly from the post transformation stage up to amounts they
could release commercially. Corn and rape came to New Zealand. I
complained about the small separation requirements, insufficient I thought
to prevent pollen transferring genes. New Zealand has subsequently had GM
corn pollution. Do the genes of the corn pollution here indicate that it
did not come from those early `field tests'?

so NZ cannot claim to be GM free and must label its produce accordingly

Jim Webster

On 20 Aug 2003 06:22:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 17 Aug 2003 11:20:51 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
And they cheat by trapsing them from northern to southern hemisphere
and back every 6 months to get two summer growing seasons per year
to build stocks. That is done under the guise of `field testing'.

A small company takes the profits and the public the risks.

Please give an example of company profits derived from a product that
the market doesn't want.

As quite frequently it is hard to see the relation of your statements to
what you are supposedly replying to.

Haven't you been repeatedly telling us that NO-ONE wants GM seed? But
that Monsanto (or some other bogie man) forces everyone to use it?

Well back into the 1990s seed companies developing GM crops were taking
them to New Zealand and other southern hemisphere countries to increase
stocks more quickly from the post transformation stage up to amounts they
could release commercially. Corn and rape came to New Zealand. I
complained about the small separation requirements, insufficient I thought
to prevent pollen transferring genes. New Zealand has subsequently had GM
corn pollution. Do the genes of the corn pollution here indicate that it
did not come from those early `field tests'?

The companies doing the seed multiplication were getting paid, but the
public was taking the risk.

And the ultimate aim was for Monsanto to make a profit on this stuff
that no-one wants?

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

This misunderstanding is based on the assumption that the seed
developer has achieved the goal as soon as they know the gene and can
deliver it into the plant, where as conventional breeding can take
generations to achieve a goal because of the need to eliminate
undesirable traits.

So can yo give us an example of a trait that was brought about quickly
by conventional breading, and a similar trait that was delayed by GM?

Why should I.

Did you mean to end this with a question mark?
I don't recall telling you you should do anything.

The contention above, which you are apparently reacting
to, may be true whether or not I can give you such an example.

Do you have a degree in the bleedin' obvious?

Fact: After fifteen years of research and development
experience, it has become apparent that genetic modification can
increase development time.

Development time of what?

Why ask, it is quite clear from the context.

You've only mentioned genetic modification in general. I asked what
specifically, but if you want to keep it a secret....

Have two identical traits been developed by
conventional and GM techniques so this comparison that you claim can
be made?

Now, I should say, I am not the originator of any claim made around
here. I am quoting almost verbatim from the response of Novartis
Australasia to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Primary Industries and Regional Services' invitation for submissions
to the Inquiry into Primary Producer Access to Gene Technology.

And you attributed this?

It was apparently important to Novartis to let the committee know that
in their experience as a major global seed developer, shortened
development time of new varieties is not generally among the benefits
offered by GM technology -- and that consequently claims of short
development time for GM seeds should not be used to promote it.

Short compared to what?

The necessary laboratory work is
complementary to, not a substitute for field breeding work.
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Try and get the genetics for the resistance to the blight that caused the
Irish potato famine into commercial varieties with conventional breeding.
They have been trying for years and genetic engineering methods got it done
when conventional breeding had failed time and time again.

The savings on fungicide to farmer and the reduced polluting of the
environment will be tremendous. It will make potatoes a crop that the third
world can grow.

Gordon

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:23:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

Try and get the genetics for the resistance to the blight that caused the
Irish potato famine into commercial varieties with conventional breeding.

I assume you mean genetics from _Solanum bulbocastanum_. Resistance
genes from it were reported to have been transferred to potatoes using
conventional breeding methods by 2000, and using genetic engineering
by 2003. However, no commercial seed potatoes have become available
from the introgression by either method so far, and expected time of
arrival of any commercial seed potatoes on the market is unknown.

Gordon, hypothetical commercial GM seed potatoes of the future, which
have not yet been developed into existence are not very good examples
of short development time of GM seeds. I am pretty sure Novartis is
referring to actual experience from developing actually existing
commercial GM varieties, when they say GM varieties generally take a
bit more time to develop than new conventionally bred varieties.

They have been trying for years and genetic engineering methods got it done
when conventional breeding had failed time and time again.

See above. It's gone in by either method, however, the development
time for commercially available seeds with _Solanum bulbocastanum_
late blight resistance genetics is just not known. You can't use an
unknown development time to exemplify short development time, that
ought to be selfevident.

The savings on fungicide to farmer and the reduced polluting of the
environment will be tremendous. It will make potatoes a crop that the third
world can grow.

Oh, so much hype.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. The error you made was to claim that GM takes longer than
conventional breeding for a desired cheracteristic. Despite my asking
you for an example, you decided to make funny noises instead.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:17:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:23:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

Try and get the genetics for the resistance to the blight that caused the
Irish potato famine into commercial varieties with conventional breeding.

I assume you mean genetics from _Solanum bulbocastanum_. Resistance
genes from it were reported to have been transferred to potatoes using
conventional breeding methods by 2000, and using genetic engineering
by 2003. However, no commercial seed potatoes have become available
from the introgression by either method so far, and expected time of
arrival of any commercial seed potatoes on the market is unknown.

And when did they start doing both?

Gordon, hypothetical commercial GM seed potatoes of the future, which
have not yet been developed into existence are not very good examples
of short development time of GM seeds. I am pretty sure Novartis is
referring to actual experience from developing actually existing
commercial GM varieties, when they say GM varieties generally take a
bit more time to develop than new conventionally bred varieties.

Such as? If you make an assertion, please give us the examples you
base it on. I wonder what you mean by "development".

They have been trying for years and genetic engineering methods got it done
when conventional breeding had failed time and time again.

See above. It's gone in by either method, however, the development
time for commercially available seeds with _Solanum bulbocastanum_
late blight resistance genetics is just not known. You can't use an
unknown development time to exemplify short development time, that
ought to be selfevident.

So use another example.

The savings on fungicide to farmer and the reduced polluting of the
environment will be tremendous. It will make potatoes a crop that the third
world can grow.

Oh, so much hype.

Some other examples of where you claim GM takes longer to do something
than conventional does?

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:23:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

Try and get the genetics for the resistance to the blight that caused the
Irish potato famine into commercial varieties with conventional breeding.

I assume you mean genetics from _Solanum bulbocastanum_. Resistance
genes from it were reported to have been transferred to potatoes using
conventional breeding methods by 2000, and using genetic engineering
by 2003. However, no commercial seed potatoes have become available
from the introgression by either method so far, and expected time of
arrival of any commercial seed potatoes on the market is unknown.

Gordon, hypothetical commercial GM seed potatoes of the future, which
have not yet been developed into existence are not very good examples
of short development time of GM seeds. I am pretty sure Novartis is
referring to actual experience from developing actually existing
commercial GM varieties, when they say GM varieties generally take a
bit more time to develop than new conventionally bred varieties.

They have been trying for years and genetic engineering methods got it
done
when conventional breeding had failed time and time again.

See above. It's gone in by either method, however, the development
time for commercially available seeds with _Solanum bulbocastanum_
late blight resistance genetics is just not known. You can't use an
unknown development time to exemplify short development time, that
ought to be selfevident.

You don't need to develop seeds with genetic engineering as you do with
conventional breeding.

Gordon

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
snip
Gordon, hypothetical commercial GM seed potatoes of the future, which
have not yet been developed into existence are not very good examples
of short development time of GM seeds. I am pretty sure Novartis is
referring to actual experience from developing actually existing
commercial GM varieties, when they say GM varieties generally take a
bit more time to develop than new conventionally bred varieties.

They have been trying for years and genetic engineering methods got it
done
when conventional breeding had failed time and time again.

See above. It's gone in by either method, however, the development
time for commercially available seeds with _Solanum bulbocastanum_
late blight resistance genetics is just not known. You can't use an
unknown development time to exemplify short development time, that
ought to be selfevident.

You don't need to produce seed to get blight restance into GM potatoes and
it is very difficult to get potatoes to produce seed and raise them from
seed for conventional breeding.

Gordon

Saving the Potato

Agweb.com
August 21, 2003
by Dean Kleckner

Biotechnology means there doesn't ever have to be another potato
famine--in Ireland or anywhere else.

More than one million Irish men, women, and children died when a deadly
disease ripped through their potato fields in the middle of the 19th
century. Another two million fled the country. Many of them became
immigrants to the United States.

The human toll of the Irish potato famine was ghastly. According to one
account, "Parish priests desperate to provide for their congregations were
forced to forsake buying coffins in order to feed starving families, with
the dead going unburied or buried only in the clothes they wore when they
died."

Even today, Ireland's population of nearly 4 million people is less than
it was before the terrible fungus called Phytophthora infestans wrought
its destruction on poor farmers.

A current legacy of the Irish potato famine is that Irish farmers don't
plant nearly as many potatoes as they once did. That massive crop failure
of 150 years ago has written itself into Irish culture so completely that
farmers on the Emerald Isle almost instinctively turn to other crops.

They've also learned the lesson of genetic diversity. The potato famine
was catastrophic in Ireland because farmers had unwittingly become
dependent on a single variety of potato. When disaster struck in the form
of a fungus, it wiped out just about every potato plant, rather than just
one kind among many.

Yet potato blight remains a problem almost everywhere potatoes are grown.
In the United States, some 1.5 million acres are devoted to potatoes, and
every kind of potato plant grown on them is vulnerable to fungal
infection.

That may soon change. Just last month a team of scientists at the
University of Wisconsin announced that they had found a gene in a wild
Mexican potato that protects against blight.

But they didn't just find the special gene and leave it alone. Instead,
they spliced it into new plants. They created genetically modified potato
plants that resist fungal infection.

"We think this could be very useful," said John Helgeson, a University of
Wisconsin professor who is also a research scientist with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.

Now that's a huge understatement.

This amazing discovery has the potential to revolutionize potato farming,
just as biotechnology has revolutionized corn and soybean farming in the
United States. If this technology had been widely available in the 1840s,
the history of Ireland, the United States, and even the world would be
drastically different.

Another Wisconsin professor, Jiming Jiang, pointed out that the commercial
applications of this discovery would rely upon genetic modification. "It
is almost impossible to create another Burbank variety, for example,
through conventional breeding," he said. "Your odds of getting the one
gene in would be like winning the lottery."

That's where biotechnology comes in--it's like rigging the lottery so that
everybody can win.

Some critics of biotechnology will say all this talk of genetic
modification sounds "unnatural." But they fail to realize that the history
of agriculture is nothing but the history of genetic modification. For
eons, farmers have crossbred their plants to create better crops.

This desire is what brought potatoes to Ireland in the first place. Potato
plants are native to South America--they arrived in Ireland sometime
during the 17th century. Anybody who wants to argue about "unnatural"
crops should start by acknowledging that there isn't anything "natural"
about potatoes in Ireland--or Idaho, or any of the other places we
associate with the plant.

The miracle of biotechnology is that we can continue to do what farmers
have done for untold generations--except that now we can make bigger leaps
in shorter spans of time.

Without biotechnology, we may not ever breed a potato that isn't
vulnerable to fungal epidemics, triggering the starvation that killed
millions of people in the past. With biotechnology, we're on our way to
getting there.

Some might say it's 150 years too late. I say it's better late than never.
..

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:13:24 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. snip

So you agree with Novartis, that genetically modified varieties
generally take more time to develop than conventionally bred
varieties, due to additional research and development work?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:33:53 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:17:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:23:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

Try and get the genetics for the resistance to the blight that caused the
Irish potato famine into commercial varieties with conventional breeding.

I assume you mean genetics from _Solanum bulbocastanum_. Resistance
genes from it were reported to have been transferred to potatoes using
conventional breeding methods by 2000, and using genetic engineering
by 2003. However, no commercial seed potatoes have become available
from the introgression by either method so far, and expected time of
arrival of any commercial seed potatoes on the market is unknown.

And when did they start doing both?

If you are interested just look it up. Point is that no commercial
varieties have been developed from it, and we do not know when that
will be, if ever.

Gordon, hypothetical commercial GM seed potatoes of the future, which
have not yet been developed into existence are not very good examples
of short development time of GM seeds. I am pretty sure Novartis is
referring to actual experience from developing actually existing
commercial GM varieties, when they say GM varieties generally take a
bit more time to develop than new conventionally bred varieties.

Such as?

Why, the new varieties Novartis have had practical experience
developing, of course; and perhaps new varieties from other companies,
the development time of which Novartis as an insider to the industry
might know about.

If you make an assertion, please give us the examples you
base it on. snip

Oh, I do not base that on any particular examples. If I want to know
how development time of genetically modified varieties compares to the
development time of conventionally bred varieties, I ask those who are
actually developing new varieties, e.g. Novartis.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:31:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
snip
Gordon, hypothetical commercial GM seed potatoes of the future, which
have not yet been developed into existence are not very good examples
of short development time of GM seeds. I am pretty sure Novartis is
referring to actual experience from developing actually existing
commercial GM varieties, when they say GM varieties generally take a
bit more time to develop than new conventionally bred varieties.

They have been trying for years and genetic engineering methods
got it done when conventional breeding had failed time and time
again.

See above. It's gone in by either method, however, the development
time for commercially available seeds with _Solanum bulbocastanum_
--------- ^^^^^^^^
late blight resistance genetics is just not known. You can't use an
unknown development time to exemplify short development time, that
ought to be selfevident.

You don't need to produce seed snip

Sorry, I meant to be understood as talking about seed potatoes there.
The point is that the development time for commercially available seed
potatoes with _Solanum bulbocastanum_ late blight resistance genetics
is not known, since none are commercially available. You can't use an
unknown development time to exemplify short development time, that
ought to be selfevident.