| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
biotech & famine
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech. But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including both farmers and biotech employees. The problem is that good intentions are not enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to have respect for Nature's ways and real-world consequences, and our ignorance of both of these. For example, genetically engineered constructs are unstable - the artificial mechanisms that enable foreign genes to be inserted also enable them to jump out and re-insert somewhere else, resulting in unpredictable recombinations. The realization is dawning that if genetically engineered crops are planted on a large scale and contaminate large amounts of non-gmo crops before the cascading instabilities end in a genetic implosion, the result could be the largest famine in history. Go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php for explanation and references. It's a bit arrogant to presume we know more about how to grow things in africa than africans do. I heard from a ugandan who works on agriculture issues who said when they were given seeds by the west during a drought, many of them did not even sprout, so they learned the next time around to say thank you, eat the western seeds, and plant their indigenous ones which are adapted to local conditions and do sprout. -- delete N0SPAAM to reply by email |
biotech & famine
"Walter Epp" wrote in message ... "Gordon Couger" wrote: For example, genetically engineered constructs are unstable - the artificial mechanisms that enable foreign genes to be inserted also enable them to jump out and re-insert somewhere else, resulting in unpredictable recombinations. The realization is dawning that if genetically engineered crops are planted on a large scale and contaminate large amounts of non-gmo crops before the cascading instabilities end in a genetic implosion, the result could be the largest famine in history. Go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php for explanation and references. Bull shit It's a bit arrogant to presume we know more about how to grow things in africa than africans do. I heard from a ugandan who works on agriculture issues who said when they were given seeds by the west during a drought, many of them did not even sprout, so they learned the next time around to say thank you, eat the western seeds, and plant their indigenous ones which are adapted to local conditions and do sprout. South Africans sure like BT cotton. Gordon |
biotech & famine
Addressing just a few of the points..... see inline
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp wrote: There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech. Genetic manipulation has been going on for milliennia. Agriculturalists since the beginning of recorded history have genetically modified crops. Of course the main methods have been selection, (which removes genes from the gene pool) but other methods such as treating seeds with caustic materials, heat, cold and partial fermentation have all been used. So has cross-fertilisation, both intra and cross species. The result is that many crop plants are multiploid, and sterile, and open to any naturally occurred disease mutation that comes along. Bananas may be extinct in a few years. A mutant disease could wipe all the crop plants in a season. Most crop plants *only* survive because of man's intervention and huge amounts of chemicals. For example, genetically engineered constructs are unstable - the artificial mechanisms that enable foreign genes to be inserted also enable them to jump out and re-insert somewhere else, resulting in unpredictable recombinations. The realization is dawning that if genetically engineered crops are planted on a large scale and contaminate large amounts of non-gmo crops before the cascading instabilities end in a genetic implosion, the result could be the largest famine in history. See above. The way that we conduct agriculture is unbelievably dangerous. And that's got nothing to do with current genetic engineering. The fact that GE organisms are fragile is good. They will not stand against the "natural" organisms that contend against them. Look someday at the huge numbers of wild Brassicas by our roadsides. They are nothing more than the descendents of cultivated Brassicas that have escaped and reverted to type. There is no trace of the cultivars in the feral plants. The same would happen to GE organisms. They are *fragile* and would soon get absorbed by the more robust wild varieties. It's silly to believe that in a few years we could produce plants which are more robust than those produced over millions of years of evolution. Cheers, Cliff -- Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net. |
biotech & famine
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp
posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech. And the difference, in the broad scheme of things? But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including both farmers and biotech employees. The problem is that good intentions are not enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to have respect for Nature's ways Capitalisation noted. and real-world consequences, Which are? and our ignorance of both of these. But nothing in our extensive knowledge base to indicate any problem? For example, genetically engineered constructs are unstable - Just like many mutations. So what? That's good, isn't it? the artificial mechanisms that enable foreign genes What's a "foreign gene"? to be inserted also enable them to jump out and re-insert somewhere else, resulting in unpredictable recombinations. The realization is dawning that if genetically engineered crops are planted on a large scale and contaminate large amounts of non-gmo crops before the cascading instabilities end in a genetic implosion, the result could be the largest famine in history. Go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php for explanation and references. Another propaganda group? It's a bit arrogant to presume we know more about how to grow things in africa than africans do. Why? We each know more about some things than about other things. I heard from a ugandan who works on agriculture issues who said when they were given seeds by the west during a drought, many of them did not even sprout, so they learned the next time around to say thank you, eat the western seeds, and plant their indigenous ones which are adapted to local conditions and do sprout. Have you got a link to this urban myth? :) |
biotech & famine
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech. And the difference, in the broad scheme of things? But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including both farmers and biotech employees. The problem is that good intentions are not enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to have respect for Nature's ways and real-world consequences, The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food. You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much money the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or research. Gordon |
biotech & famine
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech. And the difference, in the broad scheme of things? But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including both farmers and biotech employees. The problem is that good intentions are not enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to have respect for Nature's ways and real-world consequences, The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food. You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much money the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or research. Gordon |
biotech & famine
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech. And the difference, in the broad scheme of things? But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including both farmers and biotech employees. The problem is that good intentions are not enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to have respect for Nature's ways and real-world consequences, The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food. You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much money the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or research. Gordon |
biotech & famine
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message ... On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech. And the difference, in the broad scheme of things? But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including both farmers and biotech employees. The problem is that good intentions are not enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to have respect for Nature's ways and real-world consequences, The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food. You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much money the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or research. Gordon The folks I, or those associated with our projects, deal with generally ask for water, transportation and equipment and in about that order. This is pertaining to food as we know that medical assistance is of high priority also. Seldom if ever do we get requests for seeds except to borrow or buy from a nearby group of the same culture. The increasing millions spent on experimenting is almost proportional to the increasing hunger in the world. This dilemma is not to be resolved by our huge corporations but by you and I. James Curts |
biotech & famine
"James Curts" wrote in message news:Vlb%a.151928$YN5.100000@sccrnsc01... "Gordon Couger" wrote in message ... On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp posted: "Gordon Couger" wrote: Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech. And the difference, in the broad scheme of things? But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including both farmers and biotech employees. The problem is that good intentions are not enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to have respect for Nature's ways and real-world consequences, The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food. You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much money the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or research. Gordon The folks I, or those associated with our projects, deal with generally ask for water, transportation and equipment and in about that order. This is pertaining to food as we know that medical assistance is of high priority also. Seldom if ever do we get requests for seeds except to borrow or buy from a nearby group of the same culture. The increasing millions spent on experimenting is almost proportional to the increasing hunger in the world. This dilemma is not to be resolved by our huge corporations but by you and I Water in musch of the world is the limiting resorce and more irrigation will produce more crops. But here are very few acres than can be irrigated with conventional crops. The GM salt resistant ones could greatly increse the amount of irrgated land. Infra structure is expensive and takes time and in some cases education. A seed company has no control or expertise in any of these things They can produce seeds and chemicals. Infrastructure and irrigation are idly suited to countries with lower levels of technology and the NGO sector. They are not problems of sconce. Green Piece could build some roads and buy some truck if they really wanted to help these countries they claim to want to protect. GM seeds can be develop in a short time and take no state expenditures and can be targeted to the needs of the farmer no some planer that that is the presidents brother in law. They are by no means the total answered to the problem but they are a large piece. The reduction of pesticide, erosion and nutrient transfer are extremely voluble to the farmer, the environment and the world as whole. The big corporations would not be doing it if the state funded seed breeds had been funded and given a free hand in the matter but they ran into the same political correct carp at their institutions and went to work in an environment that appreciated their work and played them well for it. Don't blame business for picking up on a valuable process that the pubic funded research were not moving forward. If you are concerned about big business direct you gaze and Nestle, Dunavant Cotton Co. and the other privately held ag merchants that make Monsanto look like the corner grocery store. Many of their higher ups can't set foot in the US with out being served with a subpoena for anti trust violations. Gordon |
biotech & famine
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. |
biotech & famine
Gordon Couger wrote:
They are by no means the total answered to the problem but they are a large piece. The reduction of pesticide, inkname: GMO URL: http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...O12092002.html [...] Increased use of herbicides: Contrary to claims from the biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides (weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging crops. Although it was claimed that only one application would be needed per crop, several are being made. In addition, weeds are developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that grow after a harvest (volunteers) have appeared and spread widely. In particular, GM oilseed rape volunteers- the GM crop most likely to be introduced in the UK - have spread quickly, and some plants have become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to older and more toxic chemicals. [...] erosion and nutrient transfer are extremely voluble to the farmer, the environment and the world as whole. Here in New Zealand we do not have commercial genetically modified crops. But we do have no-tillage. `Living Here' August 2003: (In Christchurch letterboxes today.) `No tillage is a method of directly sowing new crop or grass seeds into paddocks without ploughing or cultivating the soil. Thosae using this method say it uses less msachinery and cuts fuel, time and machinery costs by up to 70%.' `The no-tillage method sees Simon leaving harvest residues on the ground, which improves the soil's organic composition and structure. "Because of our soil's high organic matter, it has better water holding capacity than soil under a culitivated system." Simon irrigates less than many of his cultivating neighbourts, but still retains good soil moisture levels. Moist soil is less likely to be picked up by the wind, he says.' The big corporations would not be doing it if the state funded seed breeds had been funded and given a free hand in the matter but they ran into the same political correct carp at their institutions and went to work in an environment that appreciated their work and played them well for it. Don't blame business for picking up on a valuable process that the pubic funded research were not moving forward. It's a liability and now animaqls won't eat the stuff they are trying to recoup something by palming it off on poor countries. If you are concerned about big business direct you gaze and Nestle, Nestle gone GE free, I understand. Dunavant Cotton Co. and the other privately held ag merchants that make Monsanto look like the corner grocery store. Many of their higher ups can't set foot in the US with out being served with a subpoena for anti trust violations. Nestle did push milk powder instead of breast feeding, resulting in much suffering from lack of clean water and also less natural immunity from mother's milk. |
biotech & famine
Torsten Brinch wrote:
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. 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. |
biotech & famine
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? Fact: After fifteen years of research and development experience, it has become apparent that genetic modification can increase development time. Development time of what? Have two identical traits been developed by conventional and GM techniques so this comparison that you claim can be made? 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. |
biotech & famine
On 17 Aug 2003 10:33:10 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted: Gordon Couger wrote: They are by no means the total answered to the problem but they are a large piece. The reduction of pesticide, inkname: GMO URL: http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...O12092002.html I've heard more lies from these crooks than..... [...] Increased use of herbicides: Contrary to claims from the biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides (weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging crops. Although it was claimed that only one application would be needed per crop, several are being made. In addition, weeds are developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that grow after a harvest (volunteers) have appeared and spread widely. In particular, GM oilseed rape volunteers- the GM crop most likely to be introduced in the UK - have spread quickly, and some plants have become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to older and more toxic chemicals. [...] erosion and nutrient transfer are extremely voluble to the farmer, the environment and the world as whole. Here in New Zealand we do not have commercial genetically modified crops. But we do have no-tillage. And? No till just needs glyphosate, or similar. Tilling is for pre-sowing weed control. It damages the soil so it's best not to do it. Use much less harmful chemicals. `Living Here' August 2003: (In Christchurch letterboxes today.) `No tillage is a method of directly sowing new crop or grass seeds into paddocks without ploughing or cultivating the soil. Thosae using this method say it uses less msachinery and cuts fuel, time and machinery costs by up to 70%.' And far less damage to the soil. Needs a herbicide. `The no-tillage method sees Simon leaving harvest residues on the ground, which improves the soil's organic composition and structure. "Because of our soil's high organic matter, it has better water holding capacity than soil under a culitivated system." Simon irrigates less than many of his cultivating neighbourts, but still retains good soil moisture levels. Moist soil is less likely to be picked up by the wind, he says.' Spot on. Glyphosate is the secret. Why did you think GM had anything to do with it? Just because of the connection with the hated Monsanto? Or because the lying soilassociation told you so? The big corporations would not be doing it if the state funded seed breeds had been funded and given a free hand in the matter but they ran into the same political correct carp at their institutions and went to work in an environment that appreciated their work and played them well for it. Don't blame business for picking up on a valuable process that the pubic funded research were not moving forward. It's a liability and now animaqls won't eat the stuff they are trying to recoup something by palming it off on poor countries. Bullshit!!! If you are concerned about big business direct you gaze and Nestle, Nestle gone GE free, I understand. A sound marketing plan coz of all the lying greenie scare campaigns about. Nothing to do with science, or the truth. Dunavant Cotton Co. and the other privately held ag merchants that make Monsanto look like the corner grocery store. Many of their higher ups can't set foot in the US with out being served with a subpoena for anti trust violations. Nestle did push milk powder instead of breast feeding, resulting in much suffering from lack of clean water and also less natural immunity from mother's milk. This is where regulation needs to curb the activities of corporations in a market situation. A free market always results in the weak being exploited by the strong. Otherwise, it ain't free. |
biotech & famine
On 17 Aug 2003 11:20:51 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted: Torsten Brinch wrote: 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. 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. |
biotech & famine
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. |
biotech & famine
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? |
biotech & famine
"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 |
biotech & famine
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? |
biotech & famine
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! |
biotech & famine
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 _?_ |
biotech & famine
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... 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 |
biotech & famine
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. |
biotech & famine
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. |
biotech & famine
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? |
biotech & famine
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... 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 |
biotech & famine
"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. .. |
biotech & famine
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? |
biotech & famine
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. |
biotech & famine
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. |
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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter