If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   British agricultural scientists go with the grain to create new wheat with 30% higher productivity. I'm super-cereal   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 57
    More: Spiffy, genetic modifications, agricultural scientist, embryo transfers  
•       •       •

847 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 May 2013 at 2:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 02:04:22 AM
I'm pretty sure that's a Russian invention.
 
2013-05-13 02:06:53 AM
I'll trade them a brick and two wood for it.
 
2013-05-13 02:31:05 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-13 02:55:03 AM
Just what we need, more carbs.
 
2013-05-13 03:04:02 AM
Where, oh where is the flatulently listless anti-gluten crowd, deafening us with their whining about how even the thought of grain makes their villi die off faster than orphans in Thatcher's Britain and how terrible are we to force them to live in such a gruel, wheaty world?
 
2013-05-13 03:13:17 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I'm pretty sure that's a Russian invention.


Came for this. Leaving happy.
 
2013-05-13 03:40:09 AM

Radak: [i.imgur.com image 501x445]


Glad I'm not the only one who immediately thought "quadrotriticale".
 
2013-05-13 04:11:47 AM
Norman Borlaug is duly impressed
 
2013-05-13 04:44:52 AM
How nice for Monsanto. I'm sure it will not be at the centre of all sorts of tragic socioeconomic clusterfarks in Asia and Africa.
 
2013-05-13 05:09:24 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I'm pretty sure that's a Russian inwention.

 
2013-05-13 05:19:35 AM
jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-13 05:30:42 AM
Great. So instead of dealing with the incredibly destructive human overpopulation, we can keep going up and up population-wise. Because there's no downside as long as people can be fed, right?

We should have been dealing with overpopulation back in the seventies instead of developing better strains of the staple crops.
 
2013-05-13 06:40:49 AM
Not if luddites like Greenpeace can help it
 
2013-05-13 06:50:09 AM
How does it do against stem rust?
 
2013-05-13 07:17:55 AM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-13 07:26:50 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Radak: [i.imgur.com image 501x445]

Glad I'm not the only one who immediately thought "quadrotriticale".


No, you're not.  I came to post a tribble picture myself.
 
2013-05-13 07:38:13 AM
More surprise Boobiess
 
2013-05-13 07:54:50 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Not if luddites like Greenpeace can help it


Because anyone who so much as suspects that this isn't the greatest idea in the history of ever must be a "luddite".
 
2013-05-13 08:04:25 AM
http://granades.com/2007/05/02/loltrek/

Since the originals were posted.
:3
 
2013-05-13 08:05:56 AM

jso2897: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Not if luddites like Greenpeace can help it

Because anyone who so much as suspects that this isn't the greatest idea in the history of ever must be a "luddite".


Actually if you read the article its not GMO. The simply mated the crop with an ancient strand.
 
2013-05-13 08:19:58 AM
The scientists used cross-pollination and seed embryo transfer technology to transfer some of the resilience of the ancient ancestor of wheat into modern British varieties.

The process required no genetic modification of the crops.


Because, you know, shuffling a couple of different species together at random is so much safer than the targeted addition of one or two well-understood genes.
 
2013-05-13 08:30:14 AM
I'm incredibly skeptical of the claims of 30% by introgressing resistance sections into modern wheat. And BBC doesn't talk about whether we're dealing with tetraploid or hexaploid wheat. Bad BBC. Bad.
 
2013-05-13 08:32:49 AM

MindStalker: jso2897: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Not if luddites like Greenpeace can help it

Because anyone who so much as suspects that this isn't the greatest idea in the history of ever must be a "luddite".

Actually if you read the article its not GMO. The simply mated the crop with an ancient strand.




How can food be good for me if their is no crushing lawsuits?
 
2013-05-13 08:33:25 AM
Build a granary, noobs.
 
2013-05-13 08:40:38 AM

Kinek: I'm incredibly skeptical of the claims of 30% by introgressing resistance sections into modern wheat. And BBC doesn't talk about whether we're dealing with tetraploid or hexaploid wheat. Bad BBC. Bad.


Most people have no clue what tetraploid and hexaploid even means. If they had included that information then they'd have to explain what that means and why it matters and the story would be 3 times longer. We love to give science journalism a hard time here but we need to be realistic in our expectations too.
 
2013-05-13 08:42:30 AM

Befuddled: Great. So instead of dealing with the incredibly destructive human overpopulation, we can keep going up and up population-wise. Because there's no downside as long as people can be fed, right?

We should have been dealing with overpopulation back in the seventies instead of developing better strains of the staple crops.


Population is near the peak of a bell curve and predicted to start leveling off and then dropping within a few decades.
 
2013-05-13 08:43:26 AM

miss diminutive: I'll trade them a brick and two wood for it.


Cities and Knights of Catan?
 
2013-05-13 08:58:56 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Befuddled: Great. So instead of dealing with the incredibly destructive human overpopulation, we can keep going up and up population-wise. Because there's no downside as long as people can be fed, right?

We should have been dealing with overpopulation back in the seventies instead of developing better strains of the staple crops.

Population is near the peak of a bell curve and predicted to start leveling off and then dropping within a few decades.


The last I read on the subject claimed that this is due to massively decreased birthrates in cities and the fact that more people live in cities than don't.   It seems like the future will be massive population centers with sparse population in between in which case the planet can tolerate a much higher population than it currently has and still leave huge amounts of land as wilderness or semi-wilderness.
 
2013-05-13 09:20:07 AM

JasonOfOrillia: miss diminutive: I'll trade them a brick and two wood for it.

Cities and Knights of Catan?


Two wool and some ore says you're right.
 
2013-05-13 09:20:41 AM

miss diminutive: JasonOfOrillia: miss diminutive: I'll trade them a brick and two wood for it.

Cities and Knights of Catan?

Two wool and some ore says you're right.


I've got wood for sheep.
 
2013-05-13 09:21:29 AM

Egoy3k: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Befuddled: Great. So instead of dealing with the incredibly destructive human overpopulation, we can keep going up and up population-wise. Because there's no downside as long as people can be fed, right?

We should have been dealing with overpopulation back in the seventies instead of developing better strains of the staple crops.

Population is near the peak of a bell curve and predicted to start leveling off and then dropping within a few decades.

The last I read on the subject claimed that this is due to massively decreased birthrates in cities and the fact that more people live in cities than don't.   It seems like the future will be massive population centers with sparse population in between in which case the planet can tolerate a much higher population than it currently has and still leave huge amounts of land as wilderness or semi-wilderness.



If you can convince (force) everyone to live in a Todos Santos-style megalopolis, then it might work. Otherwise not. Get used to more forest destruction, soil depletion, and drought.
 
2013-05-13 09:24:12 AM

miss diminutive: JasonOfOrillia: miss diminutive: I'll trade them a brick and two wood for it.

Cities and Knights of Catan?

Two wool and some ore says you're right.


Ores often agree with you just to snag you as a customer.
 
2013-05-13 09:26:51 AM
Is it a Russian inwention?
 
2013-05-13 09:35:34 AM
FTFA: The process required no genetic modification of the crops.

Bullshiat...this is EXACTLY what they did to breed this new plant. It wouldn't involve genetic modification if they'd discovered that adding, say additional minerals to the growing soil would increase productivity by 30%. But they didn't do that. Instead they played around with its genetics...they MODIFIED them...to gain the productivity, same as farmers have been doing for eons.

What they didn't do is add sea slug genes, or genes from the bladderwort or other unrelated plant to a pre-existing genome. But to claim they didn't do any genetic modification is a bald faced lie.
 
2013-05-13 09:48:25 AM

give me doughnuts: If you can convince (force) everyone to live in a Todos Santos-style megalopolis, then it might work. Otherwise not. Get used to more forest destruction, soil depletion, and drought.


We don't need to convince anyone, it's already happening.  This is the first time in the history of humanity that more people live inside cites than outside of them.
 
2013-05-13 09:57:26 AM

Stone Meadow: FTFA: The process required no genetic modification of the crops.

Bullshiat...this is EXACTLY what they did to breed this new plant. It wouldn't involve genetic modification if they'd discovered that adding, say additional minerals to the growing soil would increase productivity by 30%. But they didn't do that. Instead they played around with its genetics...they MODIFIED them...to gain the productivity, same as farmers have been doing for eons.

What they didn't do is add sea slug genes, or genes from the bladderwort or other unrelated plant to a pre-existing genome. But to claim they didn't do any genetic modification is a bald faced lie.


When they say GM, they mean targeted acting factors, usually introduced through biolistic, agrobacterium mediated vectors.

What happened here was not GM. They basically just made wheat marry it's great great great grandparent and have disgusting little wheat babies.
 
2013-05-13 10:00:31 AM

Stone Meadow: What they didn't do is add sea slug genes, or genes from the bladderwort or other unrelated plant to a pre-existing genome. But to claim they didn't do any genetic modification is a bald faced lie.


Hybridization =! genetic modification.
 
2013-05-13 10:21:40 AM

Zeno-25: Stone Meadow: What they didn't do is add sea slug genes, or genes from the bladderwort or other unrelated plant to a pre-existing genome. But to claim they didn't do any genetic modification is a bald faced lie.

Hybridization =! genetic modification.


Actually, is *IS* genetic modification, it's just not direct manipulation of the DNA.
 
2013-05-13 10:26:11 AM

Kinek: Stone Meadow: FTFA: The process required no genetic modification of the crops.

Bullshiat...this is EXACTLY what they did to breed this new plant. It wouldn't involve genetic modification if they'd discovered that adding, say additional minerals to the growing soil would increase productivity by 30%. But they didn't do that. Instead they played around with its genetics...they MODIFIED them...to gain the productivity, same as farmers have been doing for eons.

What they didn't do is add sea slug genes, or genes from the bladderwort or other unrelated plant to a pre-existing genome. But to claim they didn't do any genetic modification is a bald faced lie.

When they say GM, they mean targeted acting factors, usually introduced through biolistic, agrobacterium mediated vectors.

What happened here was not GM. They basically just made wheat marry it's great great great grandparent and have disgusting little wheat babies.


Go on....
 
2013-05-13 10:34:41 AM

Stone Meadow: Instead they played around with its genetics...they MODIFIED them...to gain the productivity, same as farmers have been doing for eons.


Yeah, but by that definition "genetic manipulation" happens every time sexual reproduction takes place, and since that makes the term useless for scaremongering, nobody will accept it.
 
2013-05-13 10:36:02 AM
Must......have........Wheat Thicks.
 
2013-05-13 10:39:49 AM

jfarkinB: Stone Meadow: Instead they played around with its genetics...they MODIFIED them...to gain the productivity, same as farmers have been doing for eons.

Yeah, but by that definition "genetic manipulation" happens every time sexual reproduction takes place, and since that makes the term useless for scaremongering, nobody will accept it.


And so the circle of UK ag research is complete. ;)
 
2013-05-13 10:41:42 AM

Egoy3k: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Befuddled: Great. So instead of dealing with the incredibly destructive human overpopulation, we can keep going up and up population-wise. Because there's no downside as long as people can be fed, right?

We should have been dealing with overpopulation back in the seventies instead of developing better strains of the staple crops.

Population is near the peak of a bell curve and predicted to start leveling off and then dropping within a few decades.

The last I read on the subject claimed that this is due to massively decreased birthrates in cities and the fact that more people live in cities than don't.   It seems like the future will be massive population centers with sparse population in between in which case the planet can tolerate a much higher population than it currently has and still leave huge amounts of land as wilderness or semi-wilderness.


For current example, see China..

Large populations in large cities with vast tracts of land in between

If China could ever find a way to modernize its farming systems, while simultaneously finding something worthwhile for the released labor to do, it would rival the US..

/yes, I am ignoring issues like pollution and desertification for the moment
 
2013-05-13 10:50:27 AM

Saiga410: Kinek: Stone Meadow: FTFA: The process required no genetic modification of the crops.

Bullshiat...this is EXACTLY what they did to breed this new plant. It wouldn't involve genetic modification if they'd discovered that adding, say additional minerals to the growing soil would increase productivity by 30%. But they didn't do that. Instead they played around with its genetics...they MODIFIED them...to gain the productivity, same as farmers have been doing for eons.

What they didn't do is add sea slug genes, or genes from the bladderwort or other unrelated plant to a pre-existing genome. But to claim they didn't do any genetic modification is a bald faced lie.

When they say GM, they mean targeted acting factors, usually introduced through biolistic, agrobacterium mediated vectors.

What happened here was not GM. They basically just made wheat marry it's great great great grandparent and have disgusting little wheat babies.

Go on....


One of the reasons why I'm so hesitant about this announcement is that when you backcross the wheat to a progenitor line, you're going to get linkage drag from the wild alleles that are close to the resistance alleles. I'm actually working on something similar in Barley, and while you can pull some resistance alleles in with a nearly identical line (save for the resistance gene), it's going to take years and years and years in a system as complex as wheat, and even then, this assumes that pathotypes don't change between then and now.

I'm interested to see where they got the 30% and if this is based off of english only pathogens.
 
2013-05-13 11:08:52 AM

Kinek: it's going to take years and years and years in a system as complex as wheat


Can you elaborate on wheat's complexity for the educated layman? I'm for serious, I love this stuff.
 
2013-05-13 12:34:21 PM
... and it will grow on Sherman's Planet, too.

/fun fact:  David Gerrold named 'Sherman's Planet' after his girl friend's last name, to score points with her.
 
2013-05-13 12:48:34 PM

theorellior: Kinek: it's going to take years and years and years in a system as complex as wheat

Can you elaborate on wheat's complexity for the educated layman? I'm for serious, I love this stuff.


I wrote a giant post but the internet ate it.

Essentially there are three problems. Wheat's genome is five times the size of a humans. People have ~3 billion base pairs. Wheat has 15 billion. In addition to this, wheat also has three sets of chromosomes, which means that for some genes there can be as many as six copies floating around somewhere. Some of these are divergent, which means they don't do the same things, others are similar but are active under different circumstances. For highly similar sequences, sometimes it's hard to tell what exactly you're looking at. And Wheat is exceptionally hard to do transformations with. It doesn't respond well as a callus, so we can't validate genes transgenically like we can in Maize or Soy. Along with this, wheat doesn't have near the funding that most of the other major crops do. The chinese support rice, we do Maize and Soy. Everything else sorta sucks in comparison.
 
2013-05-13 01:05:06 PM
25.media.tumblr.com

Too obscure?
 
2013-05-13 01:11:39 PM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Norman Borlaug is duly impressed


Came for the Norman Borlaug reference, leaving happy.
 
2013-05-13 01:51:58 PM

Kinek: Along with this, wheat doesn't have near the funding that most of the other major crops do.


That's weird. It's one of the Big Three. Is it because it's as complicated as you say, so no one wants to touch it?
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report