biotech & famine
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:31:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: [quoting:] Saving the Potato Agweb.com August 21, 2003 by Dean Kleckner .. 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. Bwahahahaha. POTATO OFFERS RESISTANCE TO LATE BLIGHT DISEASE Agnet Dec 17, December 17, 1998 USDA - ARS News Service Aberdeen, Idaho. A new potato with resistance to the world’s worst potato disease is now available to plant breeders. "This potato is highly resistant to attack by late blight, the disease that caused the Irish POTATO famine of the 1840s," said plant pathologist Dennis L. Corsini with the Agricultural Research Service in Aberdeen, Idaho. He and colleagues at Aberdeen and at Prosser, Wash., developed the new spud, known as AWN86514-2. .. The new potato’s parents are a french-fry variety - Ranger Russet, developed by Pavek - and a potato selected from Poland’s POTATO breeding institute. ARS released the new potato in collaboration with the agricultural experiment stations of Oregon, Idaho and Washington. |
biotech & famine
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: 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? No. Read what I wrote. I disagree with you that GM takes longer than conventional to get a particular characteristic in a plant. Mainly coz you haven't given us an example of this. |
biotech & famine
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:41 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: 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. It's your story. Point is that no commercial varieties have been developed from it, and we do not know when that will be, if ever. So? Then show us another example of your contention that GM development of a plant characteristic takes longer than conventional. I haven't seen one example of this yet. 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. So you have this contention that GM takes longer than conventional to develop a plant characteristic, but you can provide NO examples? 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. Well why didn't you say that in the fisrt place and stop wasting our time? 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. I haven't seen Novartis posting here. |
biotech & famine
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:06:19 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: 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. So give us a fecking example of your contention that a new plant characteristic is slower to develop with GM than conventional breeding methods. |
biotech & famine
"Mooshie peas" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:06:19 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: 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. So give us a fecking example of your contention that a new plant characteristic is slower to develop with GM than conventional breeding methods. it certainly is an eye opener, that all these plan breeding companies all go off and use this really slow and inefficient GM technology, which they are too stupid to realise is so much slower than the methods they are familiar with. Yet this phenomena can be spotted by anyone on usenet who is anti gm funny that Jim Webster |
biotech & famine
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:49:00 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: 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? No. So, you think Novartis lied to the committee about the relation between the development time for new GM varieties and new conventionally bred varieties, by postulating additional research and development work for GM varieties, work which Novartis in fact do not spend time doing? snip |
biotech & famine
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... 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? No, the added time is due to red tape. Gordon |
biotech & famine
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... 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. They aren't commercial stocks available because there is no rush to develop GM potatoes becuse ass holes like you have successfully poisoned the market and efforts have been directed to areas that are profitable. Gordon |
biotech & famine
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:31:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: [quoting:] Saving the Potato Agweb.com August 21, 2003 by Dean Kleckner .. 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. Bwahahahaha. POTATO OFFERS RESISTANCE TO LATE BLIGHT DISEASE Agnet Dec 17, December 17, 1998 USDA - ARS News Service Aberdeen, Idaho. A new potato with resistance to the world's worst potato disease is now available to plant breeders. "This potato is highly resistant to attack by late blight, the disease that caused the Irish POTATO famine of the 1840s," said plant pathologist Dennis L. Corsini with the Agricultural Research Service in Aberdeen, Idaho. He and colleagues at Aberdeen and at Prosser, Wash., developed the new spud, known as AWN86514-2. .. The new potato's parents are a french-fry variety - Ranger Russet, developed by Pavek - and a potato selected from Poland's POTATO breeding institute. ARS released the new potato in collaboration with the agricultural experiment stations of Oregon, Idaho and Washington. How do you get the resistance into other varieties? Gordon |
biotech & famine
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:33 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . 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? No, the added time is due to red tape. So, are you saying Novartis lied in their response to the Committee when they said there is additional research and development work with new genetically modified varieties compared to new conventionally bred varieties? |
biotech & famine
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:01:53 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . 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. They aren't commercial stocks available because there is no rush to develop GM potatoes becuse ass holes like you have successfully poisoned the market and efforts have been directed to areas that are profitable. So, is your statement, that the recent discovery and cloning of the RB resistance gene and its subsequent insertion in experimental potatoes in 2002, would have led to marketing of commercial varieties of potatoes with the RB gene by 2003, if there had been a market for them? |
biotech & famine
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:03:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:31:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: [quoting:] Saving the Potato Agweb.com August 21, 2003 by Dean Kleckner .. 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. Bwahahahaha. POTATO OFFERS RESISTANCE TO LATE BLIGHT DISEASE Agnet Dec 17, December 17, 1998 USDA - ARS News Service Aberdeen, Idaho. A new potato with resistance to the world's worst potato disease is now available to plant breeders. "This potato is highly resistant to attack by late blight, the disease that caused the Irish POTATO famine of the 1840s," said plant pathologist Dennis L. Corsini with the Agricultural Research Service in Aberdeen, Idaho. He and colleagues at Aberdeen and at Prosser, Wash., developed the new spud, known as AWN86514-2. .. The new potato's parents are a french-fry variety - Ranger Russet, developed by Pavek - and a potato selected from Poland's POTATO breeding institute. ARS released the new potato in collaboration with the agricultural experiment stations of Oregon, Idaho and Washington. How do you get the resistance into other varieties? How did you get into AWN86514-2, you think? However, how about dealing with that stupid op-ed piece you posted first? It bloody claimed that "without biotechnology, we may not ever breed a potato that isn't vulnerable [to late blight]" While conventional breeders have already bred potatoes with high late blight resistance for years! Research - ARS - Dennis L. Corsini and Joseph Pavek USDA University of Idaho, R&E Center Aberdeen, ID 83210 .. We are devoting a great deal of our resources to late blight resistance and have identified two selections that have high levels of foliar and tuber blight resistance that will reduce the need for applying fungicides weekly during the growing season. The first, AWN86514-2, has been released as late blight resistant germplasm for breeders. The other, A90586-11, has high yields with tuber type and quality suited for french-fry processing, and we are continuing seed multiplication and testing of it. .. We are [also] testing transgenic Russet Burbank and Ranger Russet developed by public programs for blackspot and virus resistance, and transgenic Lenape for reduced glycoalkaloids. We have seen positive results for the blackspot resistance and reduced glycoalkaloid traits, however plant and tuber abnormalities are major problems with this material. snip |
biotech & famine
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:10:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:49:00 GMT, Mooshie peas wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: 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? No. So, you think Novartis lied to the committee about the relation between the development time for new GM varieties and new conventionally bred varieties, by postulating additional research and development work for GM varieties, work which Novartis in fact do not spend time doing? You must be desperate resorting to dishonest snipping. My full response to your "So you agree with Novartis..." paragraph above was: "No. Read what I wrote. I disagree with you that GM takes longer than conventional to get a particular characteristic in a plant. Mainly coz you haven't given us an example of this." Your dishonest twisting is noted, along with your continued inability to exemplify your original contention that GM development of plant characteristics is slower than conventional. |
biotech & famine
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:02:31 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:10:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:49:00 GMT, Mooshie peas wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: 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? No. So, you think Novartis lied to the committee about the relation between the development time for new GM varieties and new conventionally bred varieties, by postulating additional research and development work for GM varieties, work which Novartis in fact do not spend time doing? You must be desperate resorting to dishonest snipping. Well, you are desperately not dealing with the question at hand. Do you, or do you not think Novartis lied to the committee, when they said they have additional research and development work with GM varieties? My full response to your "So you agree with Novartis..." paragraph above was: "No. Read what I wrote. I disagree with you that GM takes longer than conventional to get a particular characteristic in a plant. Mainly coz you haven't given us an example of this." Your dishonest twisting is noted, along with your continued inability to exemplify your original contention that GM development of plant characteristics is slower than conventional. If you have an axe to grind in relation to something you think I've said, you must -quote- me. |
biotech & famine
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:24:03 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:33 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message . .. 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? No, the added time is due to red tape. So, are you saying Novartis lied in their response to the Committee when they said there is additional research and development work with new genetically modified varieties compared to new conventionally bred varieties? No, that you are wrong when you 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. Fact: After fifteen years of research and development experience, it has become apparent that genetic modification can increase development time. 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." No example, you see. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter