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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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

"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

"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

"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

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.