🚀 go-pugleaf

Ian Staples wrote:

> I was asked by a colleague today whether I had any fairly general
> info on genetic engineering.  He wanted it to give to the son of
> a mutual friend to help the kid do a secondary school project on
> the topic.
>
> I discovered that my "clippings file" on the topic had pretty
> much all negative info -- "Ban GE foods", "GE spuds may do nasty
> things to you", and that sort of stuff.  Not only was it mostly
> negative, it was also mostly [totally] concerned with agricultural
> production of food and fibre.
>
> It occurs to me that (a) there must be *some* objective outlines
> of the technology available somewhere; and (b) there are clearly
> objectives of the technology that go beyond Round-Up resistant
> spuds and boll-worm killing cotton.

    While I am sure the primary goal of these companies is to sell more
Round Up and / or seed ths is will only take place if it offers ultimate
improvement in improving profits to the farmer. If the benefits don't
exceed the costs IMO they won't fly in the long run. The farmer
generally has a pretty sharp pencil - if he didn't he wouldn't still be
in business, it is a pretty pencil sharp requiring operation.

> (Manufacture of chemicals
> and medicines etc. spring to mind.)

    I expect that it probably will be restricted to specialty high
priced items or materials that are pretty scarce and hard to come by (
at least at first ). I still don't know if many or any strictly GE
operations that are operating in black ink. I suspect if all of the
money pumped in to GE research over the years was compared with the
profits taken out it has been pretty much a minus operation. IMO - GE
may be a good thing but -  the jury is still out on how it will fly in
the long run. It took a long time for hybridization to take hold and
even then it has only taken place on a relatively few crops that are
easy to manipulate.� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what
we understand,Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope �
Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

    .

>
>
> So, my question:  Does anyone have any recommendations for
> broadening my education in such matters, please?  While pointers
> to paper publications would be of interest in the mid to long
> term, the timeline for the present request from a high school
> student suggests that "on-line" pointers are probably of more
> immediate relevance.  And we're obviously talking stuff for the
> uninitiated, not articles full of gooblygook and jargon. :-)
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Cheers,  Ian S.
>
> --
>
> Ian Staples              MS-Mail: staplesi@dpi.qld.gov.au

For an all-embracing sober discussion of the issues on GM foods look at the
IFT (Institute of Food Science and Technology) statement, which is to be
found at:
<http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst.hottop10.htm/

I am sure you will also find much of interest on other pages on that site.

Regards
Paddy
Mailto:E.C.Apling@btinternet.com


Ian Staples wrote in message ...
>I was asked by a colleague today whether I had any fairly general
>info on genetic engineering.  He wanted it to give to the son of
>a mutual friend to help the kid do a secondary school project on
>the topic.
>
>I discovered that my "clippings file" on the topic had pretty
>much all negative info -- "Ban GE foods", "GE spuds may do nasty
>things to you", and that sort of stuff.  Not only was it mostly
>negative, it was also mostly [totally] concerned with agricultural
>production of food and fibre.
>
>It occurs to me that (a) there must be *some* objective outlines
>of the technology available somewhere; and (b) there are clearly
>objectives of the technology that go beyond Round-Up resistant
>spuds and boll-worm killing cotton.  (Manufacture of chemicals
>and medicines etc. spring to mind.)
>
>So, my question:  Does anyone have any recommendations for
>broadening my education in such matters, please?  While pointers
>to paper publications would be of interest in the mid to long
>term, the timeline for the present request from a high school
>student suggests that "on-line" pointers are probably of more
>immediate relevance.  And we're obviously talking stuff for the
>uninitiated, not articles full of gooblygook and jargon. :-)
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Cheers,  Ian S.
>
>--
>
>Ian Staples MS-Mail: staplesi@dpi.qld.gov.au

In article <6to4cd$45a$1@news1.epix.net>,
Harold Lindaberry  <harlind@epix.net> wrote:
>
>It took a long time for hybridization to take hold

According to Allard's 'Principles of Plant Breeding', the first commercial
maize double cross was produced in 1921.  By 1933 only 1% of maize acreage
was hybrid, while 7 years later more than 50% was hybrid, and by 1944 the
figure was >80%.  That doesn't seem like a long time to me, considering
the (relatively) low-tech state of farming and the effects of a world-wide
economic depression followed by a world war.  Certainly genetically
engineered crops have been adopted even more quickly than this by U.S.
farmers.

My guess is that lots of 'accidental' hybrids, such as bread wheat,
cotton, and tobacco, showed such remarkable superiority over their
progenitors that they were adopted at once by early agronomists.  It's
otherwise hard to reconcile the high frequency of hybrid genomes among
cultivated plants.

>and even then it has only taken place on a relatively few crops that are
>easy to manipulate.

Hence the effort to genetically engineer male sterility and fertility
restoration into a wide variety of crops where heterosis has been
observed but where the mechanics of hybridization don't make it economical
to produce hybrids by more conventional means.

Toby Bradshaw               | (206)616-1796 (voice)
College of Forest Resources | (206)685-2692 (FAX)
University of Washington    | http://poplar2.cfr.washington.edu/toby

'Toby' H D Bradshaw wrote:

> In article <6to4cd$45a$1@news1.epix.net>,
> Harold Lindaberry  <harlind@epix.net> wrote:
> >
> >It took a long time for hybridization to take hold
>
> According to Allard's 'Principles of Plant Breeding', the first commercial
> maize double cross was produced in 1921.  By 1933 only 1% of maize acreage
> was hybrid, while 7 years later more than 50% was hybrid, and by 1944 the
> figure was >80%.

    At first hybrid corn seed production involved hand detasseling, and then
there was the southern light glitch in the male sterile lines. I did some of
the early work on a chemical male sterilant spray for cotton. There was a lot
of interest for many other crops but it only worked on cotton without
excessive injury ot it plain didn't do the job.

>  That doesn't seem like a long time to me, considering
> the (relatively) low-tech state of farming and the effects of a world-wide
> economic depression followed by a world war.  Certainly genetically
> engineered crops have been adopted even more quickly than this by U.S.
> farmers.

    Which crops.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> My guess is that lots of 'accidental' hybrids, such as bread wheat,
> cotton, and tobacco, showed such remarkable superiority over their
> progenitors that they were adopted at once by early agronomists.  It's
> otherwise hard to reconcile the high frequency of hybrid genomes among
> cultivated plants.
>
> >and even then it has only taken place on a relatively few crops that are
> >easy to manipulate.
>
> Hence the effort to genetically engineer male sterility and fertility
> restoration into a wide variety of crops where heterosis has been
> observed but where the mechanics of hybridization don't make it economical
> to produce hybrids by more conventional means.
>
> Toby Bradshaw               | (206)616-1796 (voice)
> College of Forest Resources | (206)685-2692 (FAX)
> University of Washington    | http://poplar2.cfr.washington.edu/toby

In article <EzDBx7.K4o@planet.ari.dpi.qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples
<staplei@planet.ari.dpi.qld.gov.au> writes
>I was asked by a colleague today whether I had any fairly general
>info on genetic engineering.  He wanted it to give to the son of
>a mutual friend to help the kid do a secondary school project on
>the topic.
>
Snip
>student suggests that "on-line" pointers are probably of more
>immediate relevance.  And we're obviously talking stuff for the
>uninitiated, not articles full of gooblygook and jargon. :-)
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Cheers,  Ian S.
>
The British Monsanto website has a good search facility which
brings up all sorts of articles and info, of all (most) shades of
opinion - http://www.Monsanto.co.uk.

You may also like to look at:

http://reports.guardian.co.uk/articles/1998/7/31/13856.html
http://www.maff.gov.uk/inf/newsrel/1998/980806b.htm
http://www.mem.dk/ukindex.htm
http://www.wharfe.demon.co.uk/genmod.htm

- oh, that last one's mine. And if you look at that, you may be
interested in http://www.wharfe.demon.co.uk/news1.htm.

Vanity publishing, really...

David Brear

The Wild Flower Page
http://www.wharfe.demon.co.uk/wildflwr.htm
Wild Flower News
http://www.wharfe.demon.co.uk/news1.htm

Hello Paddy and Everyone, 

Thanks, Paddy,  for the reference to our Position Statement on Genetic
Modification and Food.  Although you gave the full name of the
organisation correctly, its abbreviation is not IFT (a different, US,
organisation), but IFST.

The URL given was not quite correct and will not find the page.

The correct URL is 
<http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/hottop10.htm>

Regards
Ralph
******************************************************************
J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
Chair, IFST External Affairs
Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
IFST Web address <http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/>
e-mail: <jralphb@easynet.co.uk>       ICQ# 6254687. 
ICQ Web page <wwp.mirabilis.com/6254687>
******************************************************************


On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:35:12 +0100, "E.C.Apling"
<E.C.Apling@btinternet.com> wrote:

>For an all-embracing sober discussion of the issues on GM foods look at the
>IFT (Institute of Food Science and Technology) statement, which is to be
>found at:
><http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst.hottop10.htm/
>
>I am sure you will also find much of interest on other pages on that site.
>
>Regards
>Paddy
>Mailto:E.C.Apling@btinternet.com
>
>
>Ian Staples wrote in message ...
>>I was asked by a colleague today whether I had any fairly general
>>info on genetic engineering.  He wanted it to give to the son of
>>a mutual friend to help the kid do a secondary school project on
>>the topic.
>>
>>I discovered that my "clippings file" on the topic had pretty
>>much all negative info -- "Ban GE foods", "GE spuds may do nasty
>>things to you", and that sort of stuff.  Not only was it mostly
>>negative, it was also mostly [totally] concerned with agricultural
>>production of food and fibre.
>>
>>It occurs to me that (a) there must be *some* objective outlines
>>of the technology available somewhere; and (b) there are clearly
>>objectives of the technology that go beyond Round-Up resistant
>>spuds and boll-worm killing cotton.  (Manufacture of chemicals
>>and medicines etc. spring to mind.)
>>
>>So, my question:  Does anyone have any recommendations for
>>broadening my education in such matters, please?  While pointers
>>to paper publications would be of interest in the mid to long
>>term, the timeline for the present request from a high school
>>student suggests that "on-line" pointers are probably of more
>>immediate relevance.  And we're obviously talking stuff for the
>>uninitiated, not articles full of gooblygook and jargon. :-)
>>
>>Thanks for your help.
>>
>>Cheers,  Ian S.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Ian Staples MS-Mail: staplesi@dpi.qld.gov.au
>

In Article <6to4cd$45a$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<harlind@epix.net> wrote:
>Ian Staples wrote:
>
>> It occurs to me that (a) there must be *some* objective outlines
>> of the technology available somewhere;

Not sure exactly what you mean here. 'The technology' is very broad, and a
lot of things are now lumped into 'biotechnology'. If you want a basic nuts
and bolts outline of genetic engineering technology, you might start with a
text on molecular genetics. Is this what you were thinking of? Sometimes,
learning the jargon is just necessary.

>> and (b) there are clearly
>> objectives of the technology that go beyond Round-Up resistant
>> spuds and boll-worm killing cotton.
>
>    While I am sure the primary goal of these companies is to sell more
>Round Up and / or seed ths is will only take place if it offers ultimate
>improvement in improving profits to the farmer.

Yes, of course they want to recover their investments, but there are other
reasons herbicide tolerance and Bt genes were among the first to be
transferred to plants (early 1980s). Because of their unique traits, these
genes proved to be superior markers, indicating unequivocally that the
plants were stably transformed with the new gene. It made for very some
impressive journal photos too. :-) It also turned out to be a PR nightmare
for the industry, but unfortunately, there really weren't very many other
choices back then, because DNA sequencing was still done manually, and
relatively few genes had been cloned yet. So these were simply the first
products out of the lab.

Some of the more recent products of the technology are designed to have
increased nutritional qualities, higher levels of anti-carcinogens, etc.

>> (Manufacture of chemicals
>> and medicines etc. spring to mind.)

In 1997, biotech drug sales exceeded $20(US) billion, which represents about
10% of the total pharmaceutical market world-wide (US share is about half).
There are currently over 700 "protein/peptide" biotech drug companies alone,
and over 400 biotech drugs in trials. The public has only seen the tip of
the iceberg.

>    I expect that it probably will be restricted to specialty high
>priced items or materials that are pretty scarce and hard to come by (
>at least at first ).

"At first" was about ten years ago (think of AZT in 1987). The cost of
production and the price of the products have generally continued to
decrease with the technical development of the industry.

>I still don't know if many or any strictly GE
>operations that are operating in black ink.

Plenty. Their earnings are published in numerous sources. Nature
Biotechnology publishes a long list every year.

>I suspect if all of the
>money pumped in to GE research over the years was compared with the
>profits taken out it has been pretty much a minus operation.

Always some losers and some winners, but especially in the early stages of
the development of an industry, there usually more losers.

>may be a good thing but -  the jury is still out on how it will fly in
>the long run.

It is really only a question of public image at this point, and the drugs
seem to have no problem in this area. For some reason, most of the
opposition to the technology seems to focus on the agricultural applications.
Tracy

In Article <6tohgr$17oc$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>In article <6to4cd$45a$1@news1.epix.net>,
>Harold Lindaberry  <harlind@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>It took a long time for hybridization to take hold
>
>According to Allard's 'Principles of Plant Breeding', the first commercial
>maize double cross was produced in 1921.  By 1933 only 1% of maize acreage
>was hybrid, while 7 years later more than 50% was hybrid, and by 1944 the
>figure was >80%.  That doesn't seem like a long time to me, considering

Say about 7 years, from 1% market penetration to 50% (for one crop).

>Certainly genetically
>engineered crops have been adopted even more quickly than this by U.S.
>farmers.

The first GE plant was produced in 1983. When did e hit 1%? Is 50% of the US
corn crop GE yet? Seems to me the pace is fairly constant here, maybe even
slower.
Tracy

In article <taquilla.1256383902E@news.erols.com>, Tracy Aquilla
<taquilla@erols.com> writes
>
>It is really only a question of public image at this point, and the drugs
>seem to have no problem in this area. For some reason, most of the
>opposition to the technology seems to focus on the agricultural applications.

I can't help getting the feeling that those wishing to attack technology
have come to the conclusion that reads, some what paraphrased, "One can
do without food, but not without drugs". People will accept almost
anything when it comes to intervention to give a few years extra life to
a developed world person, but are suspicious of any small attempt to
grow more food using the most benign products. Indeed healthy people
will consume quantities of toxic vitamins and minerals to do the same.

Odd.

-- 
Oz

In article <6too2k$d5e$1@news1.epix.net>,
Harold Lindaberry  <harlind@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>'Toby' H D Bradshaw wrote:
>
>    At first hybrid corn seed production involved hand detasseling, and then
>there was the southern light glitch in the male sterile lines. I did some of
>the early work on a chemical male sterilant spray for cotton. There was a lot
>of interest for many other crops but it only worked on cotton without
>excessive injury ot it plain didn't do the job.

Hybrid corn seed production is back to hand detasseling since the CMS-T
disaster.

>>  That doesn't seem like a long time to me, considering
>> the (relatively) low-tech state of farming and the effects of a world-wide
>> economic depression followed by a world war.  Certainly genetically
>> engineered crops have been adopted even more quickly than this by U.S.
>> farmers.
>
>    Which crops.

'Roundup-Ready' soybeans.  Bt-cotton.

Toby Bradshaw               | (206)616-1796 (voice)
College of Forest Resources | (206)685-2692 (FAX)
University of Washington    | http://poplar2.cfr.washington.edu/toby

'Toby' H D Bradshaw wrote:

> In article <6too2k$d5e$1@news1.epix.net>,
> Harold Lindaberry  <harlind@epix.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >'Toby' H D Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> >    At first hybrid corn seed production involved hand detasseling, and then
> >there was the southern light glitch in the male sterile lines. I did some of
> >the early work on a chemical male sterilant spray for cotton. There was a lot
> >of interest for many other crops but it only worked on cotton without
> >excessive injury ot it plain didn't do the job.
>
> Hybrid corn seed production is back to hand detasseling since the CMS-T
> disaster.

    I know they went back to detasseling right after it happened a good friend of
mine an expert on the male sterility aspect lost his job and was having a hell of
a time finding new work. Later I thought I heard that they had developed a new
sterility gene and restorer gene without CMS-T problems and the seed companies
were switching to that- did that run into another snag ?

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> >>  That doesn't seem like a long time to me, considering
> >> the (relatively) low-tech state of farming and the effects of a world-wide
> >> economic depression followed by a world war.  Certainly genetically
> >> engineered crops have been adopted even more quickly than this by U.S.
> >> farmers.
> >
> >    Which crops.
>
> 'Roundup-Ready' soybeans.  Bt-cotton.
>
> Toby Bradshaw               | (206)616-1796 (voice)
> College of Forest Resources | (206)685-2692 (FAX)
> University of Washington    | http://poplar2.cfr.washington.edu/toby

Have you considered the possibility, that the negative info, is being
objective?
I'm not sure, "objectivity" can be judged by the desire for a
particular point of view, in the face of so much counter info.
The best you can probably do, is research, research, research, and at
the end of your allotted time frame, weigh the amount of info,
pro/con, to determine your "objective" point of view.
Be wary of your own biases, pro/con, so they do not skew your
findings. 
(perhaps this might be a good project for the young-uns.)
Jim........... 
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:36:42 GMT, staplei@planet.ari.dpi.qld.gov.au
(Ian Staples) wrote:


>I discovered that my "clippings file" on the topic had pretty
>much all negative info -- "Ban GE foods", "GE spuds may do nasty
>things to you", and that sort of stuff.  Not only was it mostly
>negative, it was also mostly [totally] concerned with agricultural
>production of food and fibre.
>
>It occurs to me that (a) there must be *some* objective outlines
>of the technology available somewhere; and (b) there are clearly
>objectives of the technology that go beyond Round-Up resistant
>spuds and boll-worm killing cotton.  (Manufacture of chemicals
>and medicines etc. spring to mind.)

In article <360541a1.6816024@News.value.net>, JCVines
<JCVines@value.net> writes

>I'm not sure, "objectivity" can be judged by the desire for a
>particular point of view, 

Definitely not, quite the reverse in fact.

>in the face of so much counter info.

Best thing is to argue out the points. This has been done here ad
nauseam and I doubt I am far wrong in suggesting that the net result was
that continued development of new products and continual monitoring and
control should not cause any significant problems. Indeed as more
products appear, some will be better than others and typically this
means safer and more efficacious (although rarely cheaper,
unfortunately).

-- 
Oz

In Article <6tr6p2$16h4$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>In article <6too2k$d5e$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry  <harlind@epix.net>
>wrote:
>>'Toby' H D Bradshaw wrote:
>
>>>  That doesn't seem like a long time to me, considering
>>> the (relatively) low-tech state of farming and the effects of a world-wide
>>> economic depression followed by a world war.  Certainly genetically
>>> engineered crops have been adopted even more quickly than this by U.S.
>>> farmers.
>>
>>    Which crops.
>
>'Roundup-Ready' soybeans.  Bt-cotton.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the total US soybean crop is
now RR; what percent of the cotton crop is Bt? And how long after their
first commercial introduction did it take to reach this level?
Tracy

Tracy Aquilla wrote:

> In Article <6tr6p2$16h4$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
> ('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
> >In article <6too2k$d5e$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry  <harlind@epix.net>
> >wrote:
> >>'Toby' H D Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> >>>  That doesn't seem like a long time to me, considering
> >>> the (relatively) low-tech state of farming and the effects of a world-wide
> >>> economic depression followed by a world war.  Certainly genetically
> >>> engineered crops have been adopted even more quickly than this by U.S.
> >>> farmers.
> >>
> >>    Which crops.
> >
> >'Roundup-Ready' soybeans.  Bt-cotton.
>
> The relevant question is, what percentage of the total US soybean crop is
> now RR; what percent of the cotton crop is Bt? And how long after their
> first commercial introduction did it take to reach this level?
> Tracy

    We did some evaluations on bt ( for about 5 or more years ) when it first came
out - so many years ago I hate to remember - in the early days when it was thought
that it was an actual biological control rather than just a biologically produced
insecticide, with a limited spectrum of activity, short residual material,
effective  against some lepidopterous species.    The attitude by government
regulatory agencies at the time was if it's natural it's got to be safe. IMO that is
not necessarily the case the case the material can have some nasty toxicological
side effects. When it was in a spray with limited a residual that probably was of
little concern but if it is being incorporated into edible plants they better damned
well better run a full toxicology studies on the food crops containing bt the same
as they would with any pesticide where it is incorporated in the plant itself.
    If it hadn't been for the " all natural ", " anti pesticide ",people it would
have been dead a long time ago

    � Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

In Article <6ttcpr$obe$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<harlind@epix.net> wrote:
>
>    We did some evaluations on bt ( for about 5 or more years ) when it first
[snip]
>the material can have some nasty toxicological side effects.

Toxicological side effects of Bt? You must be thinking of the very first
formulations, some of which are known to produce a broad-spectrum
beta-exotoxin. Exotoxin-producing strains have long been prohibited in the
US. Of course, there are some minor effects from the carriers and other
inert ingredients found in some pesticide formulations, but none caused by
the Bt itself.

>When it was in a spray with limited a residual that probably was of
>little concern but if it is being incorporated into edible plants they better

The plants carry only delta-endotoxin genes. These proteins are non-toxic to
vertebrates. They have been analyzed for toxicity to no end, and have passed
all of the regulatory hurdles.
Tracy

In article <taquilla.1256470037B@news.erols.com>,
Tracy Aquilla <taquilla@erols.com> wrote:
>In Article <6tr6p2$16h4$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
>('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:

>>'Roundup-Ready' soybeans.  Bt-cotton.
>
>The relevant question is, what percentage of the total US soybean crop is
>now RR; what percent of the cotton crop is Bt? And how long after their
>first commercial introduction did it take to reach this level?

RR-soybeans were introduced commercially by Monsanto in 1996.  The first
year about 2.5% of U.S. soybean acreage was RR, and that proportion grew
to 15% in 1997.  In both years the entire supply of RR soybean seeds was
sold out.  Seed availability apparently is the major factor limiting the
market share of RR-soybeans in the U.S. at the moment.

I don't have the numbers handy for cotton, but again the growth in U.S.
market share has been limited by seed supply and not by demand.  Likewise
for RR-'Yield Guard'-maize, which was planted on 750K acres in the U.S.
this year.

Toby Bradshaw               | (206)616-1796 (voice)
College of Forest Resources | (206)685-2692 (FAX)
University of Washington    | http://poplar2.cfr.washington.edu/toby

Tracy Aquilla wrote:

> In Article <6ttcpr$obe$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
> <harlind@epix.net> wrote:
> >
> >    We did some evaluations on bt ( for about 5 or more years ) when it first
> [snip]
> >the material can have some nasty toxicological side effects.
>
> Toxicological side effects of Bt? You must be thinking of the very first
> formulations, some of which are known to produce a broad-spectrum
> beta-exotoxin. Exotoxin-producing strains have long been prohibited in the
> US.

    GOOD !!!! I hope that included teratology !!!!

> Of course, there are some minor effects from the carriers and other
> inert ingredients found in some pesticide formulations, but none caused by
> the Bt itself.
>
> >When it was in a spray with limited a residual that probably was of
> >little concern but if it is being incorporated into edible plants they better
>
> The plants carry only delta-endotoxin genes. These proteins are non-toxic to
> vertebrates. They have been analyzed for toxicity to no end, and have passed
> all of the regulatory hurdles.

    GOOD AGAIN !!!!!

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

> Tracy

In Article <6ttqkr$19gu$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>In article <taquilla.1256470037B@news.erols.com>,
>Tracy Aquilla <taquilla@erols.com> wrote:
>>In Article <6tr6p2$16h4$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
>>('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>
>>>'Roundup-Ready' soybeans.  Bt-cotton.
>>
>>The relevant question is, what percentage of the total US soybean crop is
>>now RR; what percent of the cotton crop is Bt? And how long after their
>>first commercial introduction did it take to reach this level?
>
>RR-soybeans were introduced commercially by Monsanto in 1996.  The first
>year about 2.5% of U.S. soybean acreage was RR, and that proportion grew
>to 15% in 1997.

This is no faster than the first commercial F1 hybrids caught on.

>In both years the entire supply of RR soybean seeds was
>sold out.  Seed availability apparently is the major factor limiting the
>market share of RR-soybeans in the U.S. at the moment.
>
>I don't have the numbers handy for cotton, but again the growth in U.S.
>market share has been limited by seed supply and not by demand.  Likewise
>for RR-'Yield Guard'-maize, which was planted on 750K acres in the U.S.
>this year.

The next logical step would be to address the original question. What about
the early F1 hybrids? Do you think market penetration was initially limited
by supply or demand? Based on the assertions made thus far, I do not see a
significant difference between the rates of acceptance of the two technologies.
Tracy

In article <taquilla.1256520137A@news.erols.com>,
Tracy Aquilla <taquilla@erols.com> wrote:
>In Article <6ttqkr$19gu$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
>('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>>In article <taquilla.1256470037B@news.erols.com>,
>>Tracy Aquilla <taquilla@erols.com> wrote:
>>>In Article <6tr6p2$16h4$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
>>>('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>>
>>>>'Roundup-Ready' soybeans.  Bt-cotton.
>>>
>>>The relevant question is, what percentage of the total US soybean crop is
>>>now RR; what percent of the cotton crop is Bt? And how long after their
>>>first commercial introduction did it take to reach this level?
>>
>>RR-soybeans were introduced commercially by Monsanto in 1996.  The first
>>year about 2.5% of U.S. soybean acreage was RR, and that proportion grew
>>to 15% in 1997.
>
>This is no faster than the first commercial F1 hybrids caught on.
>
>>In both years the entire supply of RR soybean seeds was
>>sold out.  Seed availability apparently is the major factor limiting the
>>market share of RR-soybeans in the U.S. at the moment.
>>
>>I don't have the numbers handy for cotton, but again the growth in U.S.
>>market share has been limited by seed supply and not by demand.  Likewise
>>for RR-'Yield Guard'-maize, which was planted on 750K acres in the U.S.
>>this year.
>
>The next logical step would be to address the original question. What about
>the early F1 hybrids? Do you think market penetration was initially limited
>by supply or demand? Based on the assertions made thus far, I do not see a
>significant difference between the rates of acceptance of the two technologies.

Note that I stipulated the date of commercial double cross maize hybrids
earlier in the century as the starting point.  That's because maize F1s at
that time could not produce enough seed to satisfy demand.  Once double
crosses were used, seed supply was not limiting.  We have not yet reached
unlimited seed supplies of Roundup Ready seeds.

It took 7 years for double cross maize acreage to go from 1% to 50%, even
with unlimited seed.  If the growth rate was constant over that time, the
doubling time was more than a year.  In one year, RR soybeans went from
2.5% to 15%, for a six-fold increase even when seed was limiting.

I still contend that today's U.S. farmers are accepting transgenics more
quickly than their grandparents accepted hybrid maize.  Note that in both
eras farmers were pretty quick studies in the economics of commodity
production.

Toby Bradshaw               | (206)616-1796 (voice)
College of Forest Resources | (206)685-2692 (FAX)
University of Washington    | http://poplar2.cfr.washington.edu/toby

In Article <6tubug$1gvg$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>
>It took 7 years for double cross maize acreage to go from 1% to 50%, even
>with unlimited seed.  If the growth rate was constant over that time, the
>doubling time was more than a year.  In one year, RR soybeans went from
>2.5% to 15%, for a six-fold increase even when seed was limiting.
>
>I still contend that today's U.S. farmers are accepting transgenics more
>quickly than their grandparents accepted hybrid maize.

Advertising probably had a lot to do with it. And perhaps the ten years+ of
field testing between initial production and commercial release also had an
impact. Since the new GE plants were so highly publicized, farmers were
already well aware of their traits by the time they hit the market, and they
were just waiting for the regulatory agencies to approve them.

>Note that in both
>eras farmers were pretty quick studies in the economics of commodity
>production.

Yes, see above. But how much money did the seed suppliers spend advertising
the new F1 hybrids back in the 1930s and 40s?
Tracy

toby@u.washington.edu ('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>In article <taquilla.1256520137A@news.erols.com>,
>Tracy Aquilla <taquilla@erols.com> wrote:
>>In Article <6ttqkr$19gu$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
>>('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>>>In article <taquilla.1256470037B@news.erols.com>,
>>>Tracy Aquilla <taquilla@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>In Article <6tr6p2$16h4$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, toby@u.washington.edu
>>>>('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>'Roundup-Ready' soybeans.  Bt-cotton.
>>>>
>>>>The relevant question is, what percentage of the total US soybean crop is
>>>>now RR; what percent of the cotton crop is Bt? And how long after their
>>>>first commercial introduction did it take to reach this level?
>>>
>>>RR-soybeans were introduced commercially by Monsanto in 1996.  The first
>>>year about 2.5% of U.S. soybean acreage was RR, and that proportion grew
>>>to 15% in 1997.
>>
>>This is no faster than the first commercial F1 hybrids caught on.
>>
>>>In both years the entire supply of RR soybean seeds was
>>>sold out.  Seed availability apparently is the major factor limiting the
>>>market share of RR-soybeans in the U.S. at the moment.
>>>
>>>I don't have the numbers handy for cotton, but again the growth in U.S.
>>>market share has been limited by seed supply and not by demand.  Likewise
>>>for RR-'Yield Guard'-maize, which was planted on 750K acres in the U.S.
>>>this year.
>>
>>The next logical step would be to address the original question. What about
>>the early F1 hybrids? Do you think market penetration was initially limited
>>by supply or demand? Based on the assertions made thus far, I do not see a
>>significant difference between the rates of acceptance of the two technologies.
>
>Note that I stipulated the date of commercial double cross maize hybrids
>earlier in the century as the starting point.  That's because maize F1s at
>that time could not produce enough seed to satisfy demand.  Once double
>crosses were used, seed supply was not limiting.  We have not yet reached
>unlimited seed supplies of Roundup Ready seeds.
>
>It took 7 years for double cross maize acreage to go from 1% to 50%, even
>with unlimited seed.  If the growth rate was constant over that time, the
>doubling time was more than a year.  In one year, RR soybeans went from
>2.5% to 15%, for a six-fold increase even when seed was limiting.
>
>I still contend that today's U.S. farmers are accepting transgenics more
>quickly than their grandparents accepted hybrid maize.  Note that in both
>eras farmers were pretty quick studies in the economics of commodity
>production.

The situation with RR canola is similar, except that seed supplies are 
no longer limiting, only two years later, because canola multiplies very 
quickly.  I'm no expert, but the major limiting factor on the increase
in RR canola production is the high cost of the seed, the high cost of 
Monsanto's technology fee, and the intrusive agreement that has to be 
signed to aquire the technology.  Some people haven't been satisfied with 
the agronomic characteristics of the earliest varieties. If seeding costs
were the same as non RR varieties, RR canola would quickly have most of
the market, IMHO. (Unlike hybrid maize, the higher seed costs for RR 
canola reflect primarily development cost recovery and profit taking, as 
near as I can see). 

Jim


>




>Toby Bradshaw               | (206)616-1796 (voice)
>College of Forest Resources | (206)685-2692 (FAX)
>University of Washington    | http://poplar2.cfr.washington.edu/toby

> So, my question:  Does anyone have any recommendations for
> broadening my education in such matters, please?  While pointers
> to paper publications would be of interest in the mid to long
> term, the timeline for the present request from a high school
> student suggests that "on-line" pointers are probably of more
> immediate relevance.  And we're obviously talking stuff for the
> uninitiated, not articles full of gooblygook and jargon. :-)
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Cheers,  Ian S.

Expect replies of "gooblygook and jargon." This is sci.agriculture.

  -Paul

In article <6tv6k8$8lh@priv-sys04-le0.telusplanet.net>, Jim Wright
<jwright@agt.net> wrote:

> toby@u.washington.edu ('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:

> >I still contend that today's U.S. farmers are accepting transgenics more
> >quickly than their grandparents accepted hybrid maize.  Note that in both
> >eras farmers were pretty quick studies in the economics of commodity
> >production.
> 
> The situation with RR canola is similar, except that seed supplies are 
> no longer limiting, only two years later, because canola multiplies very 
> quickly.  I'm no expert, but the major limiting factor on the increase
> in RR canola production is the high cost of the seed, the high cost of 
> Monsanto's technology fee, and the intrusive agreement that has to be 
> signed to aquire the technology.  Some people haven't been satisfied with 
> the agronomic characteristics of the earliest varieties. If seeding costs
> were the same as non RR varieties, RR canola would quickly have most of
> the market, IMHO. (Unlike hybrid maize, the higher seed costs for RR 
> canola reflect primarily development cost recovery and profit taking, as 
> near as I can see). 
> 
> Jim


Perhaps one reason why U.S. farmers are accepting transgenics more quickly
than their grandparents accepted hybrid maize, is that hybrid corn was far
more of a revolution than transgenics are???  Pre-hybrid corn, farmers
using landraces could save seed from the years crop to plant the next year
and obtain roughly the same yield and performance (differences occurred
only due to environmental factors).  With hybrid corn, the farmer became
dependent upon the seed companies to provide seed each year.  Also,
perhaps to today's farmer, transgenics are little different that the
slight improvements and value added traits that were provided by improved
corn lines for generations?

      -Marty Sachs

Marty Sachs wrote:

> In article <6tv6k8$8lh@priv-sys04-le0.telusplanet.net>, Jim Wright
> <jwright@agt.net> wrote:
>
> > toby@u.washington.edu ('Toby' H D Bradshaw) wrote:
>
> > >I still contend that today's U.S. farmers are accepting transgenics more
> > >quickly than their grandparents accepted hybrid maize.  Note that in both
> > >eras farmers were pretty quick studies in the economics of commodity
> > >production.
> >
> > The situation with RR canola is similar, except that seed supplies are
> > no longer limiting, only two years later, because canola multiplies very
> > quickly.  I'm no expert, but the major limiting factor on the increase
> > in RR canola production is the high cost of the seed, the high cost of
> > Monsanto's technology fee, and the intrusive agreement that has to be
> > signed to aquire the technology.  Some people haven't been satisfied with
> > the agronomic characteristics of the earliest varieties. If seeding costs
> > were the same as non RR varieties, RR canola would quickly have most of
> > the market, IMHO. (Unlike hybrid maize, the higher seed costs for RR
> > canola reflect primarily development cost recovery and profit taking, as
> > near as I can see).
> >
> > Jim
>
> Perhaps one reason why U.S. farmers are accepting transgenics more quickly
> than their grandparents accepted hybrid maize, is that hybrid corn was far
> more of a revolution than transgenics are???  Pre-hybrid corn, farmers
> using landraces could save seed from the years crop to plant the next year
> and obtain roughly the same yield and performance (differences occurred
> only due to environmental factors).  With hybrid corn, the farmer became
> dependent upon the seed companies to provide seed each year.  Also,
> perhaps to today's farmer, transgenics are little different that the
> slight improvements and value added traits that were provided by improved
> corn lines for generations?

        Having been around when hybrids first came out and in visiting many Ag
meetings at the time and seen yield data comparing inbred lines vs. hybrids
there were a number of inbred lines that out yielded many of the hybrids. IMO
one of the reason that hybrids made the quantum leap with hybrids ( from the
seed company standpoint at least ) is with inbred lines the farmer buys one bag
of seed catches the seed and he's in the seed business or at least he doesn't
have to buy seed next year whereas with hybrids if he catches the seed replants,
he has maturity and other characteristics all over the place. Admittedly where
hybrids may offer a somewhat wider range of conditions where they work.    Since
the seed companies are in the seed business of selling seed, and knowing where
their OX is tethered their decision was obvious. I'm not saying that yields are
not better because of hybrids because the seed companies can afford to get
bigger and do more research to develop better inline strains at the breeding
foundation stock level. There are many non hybrid crops where yields have risen
at an equivalent rate just due to better research and development at the
foundation breeding level. That's just my opinion !. How much is due to true "
hybrid vigor " and how much just to better research at initial foundation stock
level is IMO up for grabs. If you can only sell one bag of seed per customer vs.
many bags every year " how much breeding research can you afford to do "?

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS



>
>
>       -Marty Sachs

In article <6u2ldj$bqu$1@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<harlind@epix.net> writes

>How much is due to true "
>hybrid vigor " and how much just to better research at initial foundation stock
>level is IMO up for grabs. If you can only sell one bag of seed per customer vs.
>many bags every year " how much breeding research can you afford to do "?

You are too cynical, but I agree.

-- 
Oz

In article <6u2ldj$bqu$1@news1.epix.net>, harlind@epix.net wrote: 
> Having been around when hybrids first came out and in visiting many Ag 
>meetings at the time and seen yield data comparing inbred lines vs. hybrids 
>there were a number of inbred lines that out yielded many of the hybrids. IMO 
>one of the reason that hybrids made the quantum leap with hybrids ( from the 
>seed company standpoint at least ) is with inbred lines the farmer buys
one bag 
>of seed catches the seed and he's in the seed business or at least he doesn't 
>have to buy seed next year whereas with hybrids if he catches the seed 
>replants, he has maturity and other characteristics all over the place. 
>Admittedly where hybrids may offer a somewhat wider range of conditions where 
>they work.

A minor correction here. Before hybrid corn, farmers grew open pollinated
varieties (OPVs) or land races, not inbreds.  These cultivars were highly
polymorphic and maintained their vigor (and thus yield) by out-crossing. 
Inbreds, at that time, produced very weak plants with low yield.  It is
true that OPVs yielded as well or better than early hybrids.  In fact,
inbred parents for early hybrids were such poor producers that order to
make hybrid corn production economically viable, double-cross hybrids were
produced.  Today's inbreds give better yield than early single-cross
hybrids.

    
> Since the seed companies are in the seed business of selling seed, and
knowing 
>where their OX is tethered their decision was obvious. I'm not saying that 
>yields are not better because of hybrids because the seed companies can afford 
>to get bigger and do more research to develop better inline strains at the 
>breeding foundation stock level. There are many non hybrid crops where yields 
>have risen at an equivalent rate just due to better research and
development at 
>the foundation breeding level. That's just my opinion !. How much is due to 
>true " hybrid vigor " and how much just to better research at initial 
>foundation stock level is IMO up for grabs. If you can only sell one bag of
>seed per customer vs. many bags every year " how much breeding research
can you >afford to do "? 

Yes, seed companies put their resources into developing better inbreds,
which in turn produce better hybrids.  However, IMHO, the revolutionary
aspect with respect to farmers was that if they wanted to consistently
produce the best and highest yielding corn crop, they were now forced to
purchase seeds each and every year.  This was not the case before hybrid
corn was widely adapted.


      -Marty Sachs

Marty Sachs wrote:

> In article <6u2ldj$bqu$1@news1.epix.net>, harlind@epix.net wrote:
> > Having been around when hybrids first came out and in visiting many Ag
> >meetings at the time and seen yield data comparing inbred lines vs. hybrids
> >there were a number of inbred lines that out yielded many of the hybrids. IMO
> >one of the reason that hybrids made the quantum leap with hybrids ( from the
> >seed company standpoint at least ) is with inbred lines the farmer buys
> one bag
> >of seed catches the seed and he's in the seed business or at least he doesn't
> >have to buy seed next year whereas with hybrids if he catches the seed
> >replants, he has maturity and other characteristics all over the place.
> >Admittedly where hybrids may offer a somewhat wider range of conditions where
> >they work.
>
> A minor correction here. Before hybrid corn, farmers grew open pollinated
> varieties (OPVs) or land races, not inbreds.

    I screwed up on the terminology but there was an inbreeding process
to come up
with the OPV'S or at least that was my impression ( I'm not a corn
breeder ) but
there was some research in coming up with the lines but IMHO opinion not
nearly as
much as put in to hybrids.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry
1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS.

>  These cultivars were highly
> polymorphic and maintained their vigor (and thus yield) by out-crossing.
> Inbreds, at that time, produced very weak plants with low yield.  It is
> true that OPVs yielded as well or better than early hybrids.  In fact,
> inbred parents for early hybrids were such poor producers that order to
> make hybrid corn production economically viable, double-cross hybrids were
> produced.  Today's inbreds give better yield than early single-cross
> hybrids.
>
>
> > Since the seed companies are in the seed business of selling seed, and
> knowing
> >where their OX is tethered their decision was obvious. I'm not saying that
> >yields are not better because of hybrids because the seed companies can afford
> >to get bigger and do more research to develop better inline strains at the
> >breeding foundation stock level. There are many non hybrid crops where yields
> >have risen at an equivalent rate just due to better research and
> development at
> >the foundation breeding level. That's just my opinion !. How much is due to
> >true " hybrid vigor " and how much just to better research at initial
> >foundation stock level is IMO up for grabs. If you can only sell one bag of
> >seed per customer vs. many bags every year " how much breeding research
> can you >afford to do "?
>
> Yes, seed companies put their resources into developing better inbreds,
> which in turn produce better hybrids.  However, IMHO, the revolutionary
> aspect with respect to farmers was that if they wanted to consistently
> produce the best and highest yielding corn crop, they were now forced to
> purchase seeds each and every year.  This was not the case before hybrid
> corn was widely adapted.
>
>       -Marty Sachs

In article <msachs-2009981204130001@marty7.agn.uiuc.edu>, 
msachs@uiuc.edu (Marty Sachs) wrote:

>Yes, seed companies put their resources into developing better inbreds,
>which in turn produce better hybrids.  However, IMHO, the revolutionary
>aspect with respect to farmers was that if they wanted to consistently
>produce the best and highest yielding corn crop, they were now forced to
>purchase seeds each and every year.  This was not the case before hybrid
>corn was widely adapted.

The advantage of hybrids is not necessarily simply yield _per se_.  
A major factor is that hybrids derived from inbred lines are 
genetically uniform, which usually results in a more uniform phenotype.
As a result you get consistent quality, uniform ripening, easier and
more efficient harvesting, and similar benefits.  On the downside, you
get uniform susceptibility to pests and diseases and other environmental
hazards such as flooding, drought, frost, etc., to keep farmers on their
toes.  ;-)

Cheers,  Ian S.


ianstDELETE@THISdpi.qld.gov.au

In article <6u3oqq$a5n$1@news1.epix.net>, harlind@epix.net wrote:
>Marty Sachs wrote:
>> A minor correction here. Before hybrid corn, farmers grew open pollinated
>> varieties (OPVs) or land races, not inbreds.
>
>I screwed up on the terminology but there was an inbreeding process
>to come up with the OPV'S or at least that was my impression 
>( I'm not a corn breeder ) but there was some research in coming up 
>with the lines but IMHO opinion not nearly as much as put in to hybrids.

I'm not a corn breeder either, so my terminology may be a bit mixed too. :)
There seem to be some programmes aimed at developing good OPVs through a
process of recurrent selection.  However, I suspect a lot of the motivation
for this is to improve the base populations from which inbreds are 
derived so as to get better inbreds and, therefore, better hybrids...

Cheers,  Ian S.

ianstDELETE@THISdpi.qld.gov.au

In article <A6589F7E4E3DD211AA7F0000C0E21BD57F0F29@aricrmntnews.isd.dpi.
qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <ianst@refer.to.signature.au> writes

>The advantage of hybrids is not necessarily simply yield _per se_.  
>A major factor is that hybrids derived from inbred lines are 
>genetically uniform, which usually results in a more uniform phenotype.
>As a result you get consistent quality, uniform ripening, easier and
>more efficient harvesting, and similar benefits.

Why was this a problem for maize, but not for wheat and barley (and most
crops in fact) that breed pretty true?

-- 
Oz

<0$rICJAbKeB2EwMO@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><A6589F7E4E3DD211AA7F0000C0E21BD57F0F29@aricrmntnews.isd.dpi.
>qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <ianst@refer.to.signature.au> writes
>
>>The advantage of hybrids is not necessarily simply yield _per se_.  
>>A major factor is that hybrids derived from inbred lines are 
>>genetically uniform, which usually results in a more uniform phenotype.
>>As a result you get consistent quality, uniform ripening, easier and
>>more efficient harvesting, and similar benefits.
>
>Why was this a problem for maize, but not for wheat and barley (and most
>crops in fact) that breed pretty true?

Well if they breed true they're not variable.  ;-)

Seriously, I imagine it would be *possible* to have a highly
variable population of a self-pollinating crop plant, but I don't
think it would stay that way for long.  Apart from the selection
imposed by harvesting the crop at a particular time, and, in
modern days, by a fairly selective mechanical means, there is also
all that natural selection occurring at a particular place.

Because the thing is highly self-pollinated, each plant in the
population will be close to homozygous.  That is, it will contain
very little residual variation in itself.  Once all the non-adapted
individuals are gone you will be left with just the genotypes that
like what is being done to them, either naturally or artificially,
and they will simply reproduce themselves.

Of course you may still have variation in what we might call 
"neutral" characters surviving in the population -- seed colour,
perhaps, and similar things.

Corn is designed to be almost an obligate cross-pollinating plant.
Once again, it may be *possible* to have individual highly homozygous
plants which are vigorous, competitive, and well adapted; but they
seem to be hard to come by.  An open pollinated corn field is made
up of genetically very diverse individuals, and the diversity is
maintained from generation to generation by cross-pollination in
spite of the fact that some individual genotypes in each generation
may be too weak or otherwise badly adapted to contribute much to
the next generation.  With selection you can shift the population
*mean* towards what you desire, but you're still going to be dealing
with a heterogenous population, with all the variability that implies.

Cheers,  Ian S.

ianstDELETE@THISdpi.qld.gov.au

Ian Staples wrote:

> In article <6u3oqq$a5n$1@news1.epix.net>, harlind@epix.net wrote:
> >Marty Sachs wrote:
> >> A minor correction here. Before hybrid corn, farmers grew open pollinated
> >> varieties (OPVs) or land races, not inbreds.
> >
> >I screwed up on the terminology but there was an inbreeding process
> >to come up with the OPV'S or at least that was my impression
> >( I'm not a corn breeder ) but there was some research in coming up
> >with the lines but IMHO opinion not nearly as much as put in to hybrids.
>
> I'm not a corn breeder either, so my terminology may be a bit mixed too. :)
> There seem to be some programmes aimed at developing good OPVs through a
> process of recurrent selection.  However, I suspect a lot of the motivation
> for this is to improve the base populations from which inbreds are
> derived so as to get better inbreds and, therefore, better hybrids...
>
> Cheers,  Ian S.

        For a number of years ( 10 + ) we rented some land for experimental
plots from a medium sized hybrid seed corn producer in Illinois, do I got to be
pretty good friends with some of the researchers there. They were working on
foundation breeding stock. Every seed was hand planted every tassel was bagged
and every ear was hand pollinated. on 20 acres that is a hell of a lot of work.
And there wasn't a plot stake on the whole farm. I asked them " how the hell do
you know what is what and why don't you have plot stakes ? " The answer was " we
don't want people to know what we are working with  or to steal our lines " He
told me in confidence how they kept the plots straight. It was really an
interesting method.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS.

>
>
> ianstDELETE@THISdpi.qld.gov.au

Ian Staples wrote:

> In article <msachs-2009981204130001@marty7.agn.uiuc.edu>,
> msachs@uiuc.edu (Marty Sachs) wrote:
>
> >Yes, seed companies put their resources into developing better inbreds,
> >which in turn produce better hybrids.  However, IMHO, the revolutionary
> >aspect with respect to farmers was that if they wanted to consistently
> >produce the best and highest yielding corn crop, they were now forced to
> >purchase seeds each and every year.  This was not the case before hybrid
> >corn was widely adapted.
>
> The advantage of hybrids is not necessarily simply yield _per se_.
> A major factor is that hybrids derived from inbred lines are
> genetically uniform, which usually results in a more uniform phenotype.
> As a result you get consistent quality, uniform ripening, easier and
> more efficient harvesting, and similar benefits.

    True and also a more restricted range. The company I referred to had a
seed increase farm in Florida ( to pick up a year ) an although I never was
there he said you wouldn't recognize the plants or the seed  when grown
there. The genetics were the same but the plant response was different so all
selections were made in Illinois or at other locations in the corn belt.
Apparently corn is very responsive specially to North - South orientation and
apparently 50 to 100 one way or the other miles can make a big difference on
yields, plant growth appearance etc. It was real interesting to see some of
the corn seed sizes some as big as a nickel or maybe even a quarter. Just
some comments of no real importance just talk.

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

> On the downside, you
> get uniform susceptibility to pests and diseases and other environmental
> hazards such as flooding, drought, frost, etc., to keep farmers on their
> toes.  ;-)
>
> Cheers,  Ian S.
>
> ianstDELETE@THISdpi.qld.gov.au

Oz wrote:

> In article <A6589F7E4E3DD211AA7F0000C0E21BD57F0F29@aricrmntnews.isd.dpi.
> qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <ianst@refer.to.signature.au> writes
>
> >The advantage of hybrids is not necessarily simply yield _per se_.
> >A major factor is that hybrids derived from inbred lines are
> >genetically uniform, which usually results in a more uniform phenotype.
> >As a result you get consistent quality, uniform ripening, easier and
> >more efficient harvesting, and similar benefits.
>
> Why was this a problem for maize, but not for wheat and barley (and most
> crops in fact) that breed pretty true?

    Maybe it is. But I'm now sure how you could do it for wheat and barley
as the pollen source is right near the stigma so manipulation and crossing
would be difficult for hybrid production. Inline selection should be easy
with bagging alone. But then it is back to catch 22 you spend time and money
coming up on the research coming up with a new seed line and the guy who
buys the seed is in business witout spending a dime except for buying the
seed. Again it depends on where your OX is tethered how you look at it. Thus
I expect the reason for the lethal gene ?

� Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope � Lindaberry 1998

Harold Lindaberry    reply E - mail    harlind@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at  http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> --
> Oz

In article <6u5ce4$fna$4@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<harlind@epix.net> writes

>    Maybe it is. But I'm now sure how you could do it for wheat and barley
>as the pollen source is right near the stigma so manipulation and crossing
>would be difficult for hybrid production. 

Just in passing there are now some hybrid wheats. Use a sterile male
line, I believe.

>Inline selection should be easy
>with bagging alone. But then it is back to catch 22 you spend time and money
>coming up on the research coming up with a new seed line and the guy who
>buys the seed is in business witout spending a dime except for buying the
>seed. 

Not in the EC. I grow almost all my own wheat seed but I pay a royalty
just the same. Not such a bad idea except that the seed companies
collaborate on the cost of the royalty. There are a lot of reasons why I
grow my own seed, not least in that it's here to be sown on time, whilst
the seed producers seem quite incapable of delivering seed before (or
even at) the time I want to drill it. I am STILL waiting for my winter
barley seed (ordered 22/5/98 for delivery 8/8/98) to arrive. We intended
drilling it today ...

>Again it depends on where your OX is tethered how you look at it. Thus
>I expect the reason for the lethal gene ?

In a way in the EC the manufacturers are being silly. For canola, wheat
and barley I suspect it's cheaper and quicker to have self-pollinating
varieties yet they cannot resist going hybrid despite (from what I can
tell) it's really more appropriate to inveterate cross pollinators.

I'm still somewhat unclear why it's so hard to produce homozygous maize.
Surely it would only require a few decades of breeding, if that.

-- 
Oz

In article <A6589F7E4E3DD211AA7F0000C0E21BD5804BBB@aricrmntnews.isd.dpi.
qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <ianst@refer.to.signature.au> writes

>With selection you can shift the population
>*mean* towards what you desire, but you're still going to be dealing
>with a heterogenous population, with all the variability that implies.

Why does not individual plant selection lead eventually to a homozygous
plant? Or is it that maize is diploid rather than tetraploid and thus
accumulation of poor genes is rapidly disadvantageous?

-- 
Oz

taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:

snip
>
>The first GE plant was produced in 1983. When did e hit 1%? Is 50% of the US
>corn crop GE yet? Seems to me the pace is fairly constant here, maybe even
>slower.
>Tracy

In think that to some extent one is comparing comparing apples and 
oranges. In canola, market penetration of GE varieties has been almost
completely a response to pricing of the technology, and negative reaction 
to licensing agreements, not to negative qualities of the technology 
itself. Obviously Monsanto believes that it's pricing policy is in it's 
best interest, but lowering its price slightly would give it almost 
complete market saturation, almost instantly, IMHO. It could have had 
that within two years from point of introduction to the market, again 
IMHO.  Perhaps it needs that pricing regime for reasons I don't 
understand, or perhaps doesn't want to be open to charges of monopolistic 
control of the market.
    I think that the rate of penetration relates to marketing strategy, 
not farmer acceptance. 

Jim 

In Article <6u5q05$l55@priv-sys04-le0.telusplanet.net>, Jim Wright
<jwright@agt.net> wrote:
>taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:
>
>snip
>>
>>The first GE plant was produced in 1983. When did e hit 1%? Is 50% of the US
>>corn crop GE yet? Seems to me the pace is fairly constant here, maybe even
>>slower.
>>Tracy
>
>In think that to some extent one is comparing comparing apples and 
>oranges.

I agree.

>In canola, market penetration of GE varieties has been almost
>completely a response to pricing of the technology, and negative reaction 
>to licensing agreements, not to negative qualities of the technology 
>itself. Obviously Monsanto believes that it's pricing policy is in it's 
>best interest, but lowering its price slightly would give it almost 
>complete market saturation, almost instantly, IMHO. It could have had 

What good would it do them to saturate the market if they lower the price
and thus do not make enough profit to recoup the investment in a reasonable
time?

>that within two years from point of introduction to the market, again 
>IMHO.  Perhaps it needs that pricing regime for reasons I don't 
>understand, or perhaps doesn't want to be open to charges of monopolistic 
>control of the market.
>    I think that the rate of penetration relates to marketing strategy, 
>not farmer acceptance.

As I mentioned in a previous post to this thread, advertising and other
publicity are probably a very significant factor influencing the rate of
acceptance of this technology.
Tracy

In article <6u5q05$l55@priv-sys04-le0.telusplanet.net>, Jim Wright
<jwright@agt.net> writes

>    I think that the rate of penetration relates to marketing strategy, 
>not farmer acceptance.

Frequently very true.
True of most pesticides too.
Also true of food. See caviare vs lumpfish eggs. :-)

-- 
Oz

In article <taquilla.1256780868C@news.erols.com>, Tracy Aquilla
<taquilla@erols.com> writes

>What good would it do them to saturate the market if they lower the price
>and thus do not make enough profit to recoup the investment in a reasonable
>time?

Because the R&D cost is spread over a much bigger volume and is thus
cheaper per capita.

For evidence of this see the pricing of bayleton. Priced against calixin
(cheap) it took a VAST market share, increased the market size by
manyfold and made bayer an absolute fortune. Roundup in the UK was
priced at ridiculously high level and was only used (and at reduced
rates) in extremis. It's cheaper now and volumes have increased
manyfold.

-- 
Oz

In article <0$rICJAbKeB2EwMO@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <A6589F7E4E3DD211AA7F0000C0E21BD57F0F29@aricrmntnews.isd.dpi.
> qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <ianst@refer.to.signature.au> writes
> 
> >The advantage of hybrids is not necessarily simply yield _per se_.  
> >A major factor is that hybrids derived from inbred lines are 
> >genetically uniform, which usually results in a more uniform phenotype.
> >As a result you get consistent quality, uniform ripening, easier and
> >more efficient harvesting, and similar benefits.
> 
> Why was this a problem for maize, but not for wheat and barley (and most
> crops in fact) that breed pretty true?


Maize and its ancestor are naturally out-crossers (separate male and
female flowers coupled with wind pollination), while wheat and barley and
relatives are naturally selfers.  Maize is naturally very polymorphic and
loses vigor as it becomes inbred.  With OPVs and land races, virtually
every plant in a farmer's field is genetically different, so wind
pollination maintains polymorphism and vigor in subsequent generations. 
With hybrids, the farmer's field is, at best, limited to two alleles for
each gene. So, each subsequent generation would be more and more inbred
and there is very noticeable loss in yield after only one generation.  It
took special efforts to breed maize inbred lines that produced decently
enough so that they could be used as economically viable parents of
hybrids.  Wheat, barley, etc. were always selected as inbreds, and
required no special breeding efforts to go from polymorhic lines to
inbreds.  So, while there is somewhat of a heterotic boost for hybrid
wheat, it is not as significant as in maize.

      -Marty Sachs

In article <UFtgsAADokB2Ewrd@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes

>I'm still somewhat unclear why it's so hard to produce homozygous maize.
>Surely it would only require a few decades of breeding, if that.
>

This has been looked at. Empirically, yields of the best inbreds rise
over time, but yields of the best hybrids rise at the same rate and
remain ahead. However, it is the case that the more recent inbreds yield
more than the earlier hybrids. 

The reason for this picture depends partly on mode of gene action, and
partly on the number of genes controlling yield. The gene action bit is
that heterozygotes at most genes controlling yield must yield better
than the average of the two parents. It is not neccessary that the
heterozygote yields more than the best homozygous parent, and there is
experimental evidence that it doesn't. Then if there are only a handfull
of genes controlling yield, it should be fairly easy, as you suggest, to
get an inbred which yields as much as the parent. However, in this case
the inbred would represent the best available line there was, and no
further progress through classical plant breeding would be possible. If
there are many segregating genes which control yield, then although
there is a finite probability that an inbred will be found which yields
more than the best hybrid, this probability is sod all. Also, the
greater the number of segregating genes, the longer response to
selection will last before genetic variation runs out. 

So since progress continues to be made, and since F1s continue to
maintain their advantage over parents, this suggests that there are a
lot of genes controlling yield and/or the generation of new variation
through (natural) mutation occurs at a sufficiently high rate to
maintain genetic variation and keep the F1s ahead.

There are a number of assumptions and simplifications in this
explanation, but I think it is essentially correct.

-- 
Ian Mackay

In article <msachs-2109981428580001@marty7.agn.uiuc.edu>, Marty Sachs
<msachs@uiuc.edu> writes
>In article <0$rICJAbKeB2EwMO@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <A6589F7E4E3DD211AA7F0000C0E21BD57F0F29@aricrmntnews.isd.dpi.
>> qld.gov.au>, Ian Staples <ianst@refer.to.signature.au> writes
>> 
>> >The advantage of hybrids is not necessarily simply yield _per se_.  
>> >A major factor is that hybrids derived from inbred lines are 
>> >genetically uniform, which usually results in a more uniform phenotype.
>> >As a result you get consistent quality, uniform ripening, easier and
>> >more efficient harvesting, and similar benefits.
>> 
>> Why was this a problem for maize, but not for wheat and barley (and most
>> crops in fact) that breed pretty true?
>
>
>Maize and its ancestor are naturally out-crossers (separate male and
>female flowers coupled with wind pollination), while wheat and barley and
>relatives are naturally selfers.  Maize is naturally very polymorphic and
>loses vigor as it becomes inbred.  With OPVs and land races, virtually
>every plant in a farmer's field is genetically different, so wind
>pollination maintains polymorphism and vigor in subsequent generations. 
>With hybrids, the farmer's field is, at best, limited to two alleles for
>each gene. So, each subsequent generation would be more and more inbred
>and there is very noticeable loss in yield after only one generation.

In fact, most of the loss comes in the first generation. As a first
approximation, the reduction in yield after the first generation of self
fertilization is half the total loss after many generations of selfing.

If  F2 seed (ie the seed harvested on the F1 hybrid plants) is grown on
and the F2 plants allowed to  open pollinate, then (assuming the plants
outcross), there will be no further reduction in vigour since there will
be no further increase in homozygosity.


>  It
>took special efforts to breed maize inbred lines that produced decently
>enough so that they could be used as economically viable parents of
>hybrids.  Wheat, barley, etc. were always selected as inbreds, and
>required no special breeding efforts to go from polymorhic lines to
>inbreds.  So, while there is somewhat of a heterotic boost for hybrid
>wheat, it is not as significant as in maize.

I once spent 6 months (about 10 years ago) analysing hybrid wheat data
for my then employer. The average level of advantage over inbred
varieties was about 8%. In my final report I wrote that this was "rather
disappointing". The *!#&�$ to whom I reported told me off for using
emotive language! In fact that was the only comment the *!*% made. And
am I bitter? Noooooooo.


-- 
Ian Mackay

[This followup was posted to sci.agriculture and a copy was sent to the 
cited author.]

In article <EzDBx7.K4o@planet.ari.dpi.qld.gov.au>, 
staplei@planet.ari.dpi.qld.gov.au says...

> So, my question:  Does anyone have any recommendations for
> broadening my education in such matters, please?  While pointers
> to paper publications would be of interest in the mid to long
> term, the timeline for the present request from a high school
> student suggests that "on-line" pointers are probably of more
> immediate relevance.  And we're obviously talking stuff for the
> uninitiated, not articles full of gooblygook and jargon. :-)

I don't know about articles, but genetic engineering has been going on 
for a while, and is found in some surprising places.  

Human insulin production is almost all accomplished by splicing human 
genes into yeast cells.  The yeast then happily chugs out human insulin, 
which has markedly increased the life span of diabetics.  Prior to 
genetic engineering, humans were given horse insulin and experienced 
various side effects.

Humans are one of the biggest targets for genetic modification.  
Transgenic treatments have been tried with cystic fibrosis with some 
effect.  A virus is used to transfer functioning genetic material into 
defective lungs.  Similar genetic repair therapies are in the works for a 
whole spectrum of genetic diseases.

In agriculture, researchers have been inducing polyploidy for decades.  
This is a doubling or quadrupling of the number of chromosomes in a 
target species, without actually changing the genetic information.  
Polyploid crops are generally larger and more vigorous than their haploid 
ancestors.

Maybe that can give you some key words to plug into web search engines.

-- Larry

In article <WVKgYFAerkB2EwLV@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, 
Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk says...

> Why does not individual plant selection lead eventually to a homozygous
> plant? Or is it that maize is diploid rather than tetraploid and thus
> accumulation of poor genes is rapidly disadvantageous?

There was an interesting article in Scientific American several years 
back on maize.  It turns out that maize has undergone several episodes of 
polyploidy in its history, and all modern varities are 16-ploid to 64-
ploid.  If the indians didn't use chemical means to induce polyploidy, 
they were selective breeding corn for thousands of years to accomplish 
this.  

For centuries it wasn't even clear what the progenitor grass of maize 
was, it had been bred so far from the wild.  The question wasn't resolved 
until genetic typing was developed 20 years ago.

-- Larry

On 08 Oct 98 Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk wrote:

>In article <1998Oct7.134428.20146@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>, Beverly
>Erlebacher <bae@cs.toronto.edu> writes

>>A survey of veterinarians found that pet dogs are four times more
>>likely to get leukemia if they belong to families that use
>>commercial lawn services to spray their lawns with pesticides on a
>>regular basis.  It's too hard to gather data on the children who
>>play on the lawns with the dogs, however.
>
>I wouldn't mind betting that those families also had children with
>significantly more plastic toys than the rest too.

Even when this survey would have eliminated ALL other aspects that  
might have influenced the results, one might conclude that spraying  
your lawn with pesticides, and inmiediately let your dog or child paly  
on it, is not a good practice.

I supose nobody would lick at an insect repelent as well. Nor would  
somebody eat the soup when it is still 95 degr.C

Read the label. Consider the waiting-time.

lourens

Lourens@gengler.iaf.nl (Lourens) wrote:

>On 08 Oct 98 Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>>In article <1998Oct7.134428.20146@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>, Beverly
>>Erlebacher <bae@cs.toronto.edu> writes
>
>>>A survey of veterinarians found that pet dogs are four times more
>>>likely to get leukemia if they belong to families that use
>>>commercial lawn services to spray their lawns with pesticides on a
>>>regular basis.  It's too hard to gather data on the children who
>>>play on the lawns with the dogs, however.
>>
>>I wouldn't mind betting that those families also had children with
>>significantly more plastic toys than the rest too.
>
>Even when this survey would have eliminated ALL other aspects that  
>might have influenced the results, one might conclude that spraying  
>your lawn with pesticides, and inmiediately let your dog or child paly  
>on it, is not a good practice.
>
>I supose nobody would lick at an insect repelent as well. Nor would  
>somebody eat the soup when it is still 95 degr.C
>
>Read the label. Consider the waiting-time.
>
>lourens
>
From:
http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/CEPS/petcolumns/cancercb.htm

Quoted:

CANCER RISKS IN CATS AND DOGS

PET COLUMN FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 19, 1998 
...."
Dogs have a much higher incidence of nasal sinus cancer than do people. "This
may be because they have more nose to get
cancer in and because their noses are always on the ground sniffing up chemicals
and other carcinogens that concentrate there,"
says Dr. Kitchell. Carcinogens range from herbicides and pesticides for dogs in
rural areas to factory or automobile pollution
for urban dogs. 
...."

While not a study, this column does put some perspective on the matter of cancer
in dogs.
Obviously, pesticides sniffed from lawns would not be an approved use for humans
and children do not have the nose or the desire to sense the world as does the
dog so their risk is not the same. 
On the other hand the sniffing of urban and automobile pollution requires no
permit and children likely experience a great deal more pollution in going to
school and into the community then does the dog staying home in the apartment.

Dennis

In article <361d5290.18258503@news.paralynx.com>, Dennis G.
<Dennis_Goos@mindlink.net> writes

>Dogs have a much higher incidence of nasal sinus cancer than do people. "This
>may be because they have more nose to get
>cancer in and because their noses are always on the ground sniffing up chemicals
>and other carcinogens that concentrate there,"
>says Dr. Kitchell. Carcinogens range from herbicides and pesticides for dogs in
>rural areas to factory or automobile pollution
>for urban dogs. 

This is an interesting mis-statement. Can anyone name a current
pesticide which is carcinogenic? IF so the FDA would like to know.

So perhaps Dr Kitchell is less well informed than one might imagine.

>While not a study, this column does put some perspective on the matter of cancer
>in dogs.

Not really. Any more than breast cancer or testicular cancer puts a
perspective on humans. (I hope).

>On the other hand the sniffing of urban and automobile pollution requires no
>permit and children likely experience a great deal more pollution in going to
>school and into the community then does the dog staying home in the apartment.

Good point. A known carcinogen (benzene) is available in bulk at every
petrol station and being more dense than air, is likely to be closer to
a dogs nose than a humans.

-- 
Oz

On 08 Oct 98 dkendra@mr.net wrote:

>Beverly Erlebacher wrote:
>> The incidence of leukemias and other cancers has increased
>> remarkably in US corn and grain farmers and their families over

>Can you please give me a reference for this.  I am more concerned
>about the impact of mycotoxins on farmers than I am on
>agrichemicals.  I notice that no one (for the most part) seems to
>mention these as factors, yet they are some of the most toxic
>materials know.

Recently, I saw a documentary on (BBC?) television, about the seven  
plagues in ancient Egypt, as written in the bible. Specialists in  
several sciences analysed all plagues and came to remarkable  
conclusions.

The most difficult one was the dying of the first-borne sons. Finally  
it was concluded that the where toxicated just while/after opening  
their grain storage. The cause: mycotoxins.

The first-borne was trditionally the one who would do this important  
job. But because of the damaged crop and bad wheather, the grain was  
contaminated. When they opened it the first time, the toxins killed  
the first. After some time the toxins where gone, so others stayed  
alive.

lourens