Above Capricorn Technologies - agricultural and environmental consultants /managers focussing on agriculture, horticulture, turf, sportsturf, livestock, land and land rehabilitation, erosion management, bioremediation, phytoremediation, water/wastewater and waste management [especially organics] in the tropics
Some recent information provides even more success stories in yield increases in major crops using modern options in genetic modification. Example 1 New genetically modified corn
produces up to 10% more than similar types Science -
04 November 2019
Researchers have for the first time conclusively shown they can increase corn
yields up to 10% by changing a gene that increases plant growth—regardless of
whether growing conditions are poor or optimal. …researchers at Corteva
Agriscience, a chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware, decided
to look at genes that function like master switches for growth and yield. They
picked MADS-box genes, a group common in many plants, before settling on one (zmm28) to alter in corn
plants. The researchers tested the enhanced gene’s performance in 48 commercial
types of corn, known as hybrids, that are commonly used to feed livestock
and found yield increases ranging from 3-10% with the findings published this
week in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences. Example 2. Researchers Use Gene Modification to
Defeat Rice-Killing Disease Karma Impact -
31 October 2019
Researchers successfully edited the genome of strains of rice grown in
Southeast Asia and West Africa to block a pathogen [bacterial blight] that
ravages yields of the staple crop, the latest example of gene modification that
may reduce hunger throughout the world.Scientists at Manila’s International
Rice Research Institute used CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing to prevent rice from
expressing genes that serve as Xoo’s point of entry to hijack the plant’s
nutrients, according to Nature. The team found that rice plants
with these engineered genes were resistant to at least 95 Xoo strains. Both crops are major food sources world wide, and using GM techniques can add big increases in yield quite quickly. Another "biggie" is Vitamin A enhanced rice - and Bangladesh seems likely to approve its use very soon. Example 3 Bangladesh close to releasing Golden
Rice Dhaka Tribune –
28 October 2019
Bangladesh will soon make a decision on the release of Golden Rice. According
to the WHO one in every five pre-school children and 23.7% of pregnant women
suffer from vitamin A deficiency in Bangladesh.
This is a classic case of about face, with a former strident anti GMO activist now an active campaigner for GMO crops, Mark Lynas and his book "Seeds of Science" is published today, June 26. The article is in the Wall Street Journal - about as pro business as it comes, on June 23 2018. This is the link - https://www.wsj.com/articles/confession-of-an-anti-gmo-activist-1529679465 It might be behind a pay wall, but my guess it will be leaked...... and as I could read it now, it might not be unavailable anyway, as it was a few days ago. A strong case for using GMO seeds and well written. The case for more serious embrace of the technology is strong, and with newer techniques including the CRSPR technology of gene insertion using material from the same or very similar species, it now is not even treated as a GMO in many countries plant varieties registration systems. This article opens the potential for improving plant science and crop yield and overall performance,especially disease and insect resistance and follows up on a recent article by Bill Gates on similar roles for GM crops.
The US has made much of the loss of intellectual property to China in recent years. And in agriculture this includes new varieties and the seeds of those new varieties. A recent court case has highlighted a new variety that seems to have been on its way to China.......but was detected at the US border. Sobering reading.
Chinese Scientist Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Rice-Smuggling Plot
The researcher stole genetically modified seeds and planned to give them to a crop research institute in China, the US Justice Department says.
By Ashley Yeager | April 5, 2018
FLICKR, BLOGTREPRENEURChinese scientist Weiqiang Zang was sentenced yesterday (April 4) to 121 months in federal prison for conspiring to steal genetically modified rice seeds from Ventria Bioscience while working at its Kansas-based facility. Zhang planned to give the seeds to a research institute in China, according to a statementfrom the US Justice Department.
“Weiqiang Zhang betrayed his employer by unlawfully providing its proprietary rice seeds to representatives of a Chinese crop institute,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Cronan says in the statement. The “sentence demonstrates the significant consequences awaiting those who would steal trade secrets from American companies.”
Zhang, who has a master’s degree in agriculture from Shengyang Agricultural University in China and a doctorate from Louisiana State University, worked as a rice breeder at Ventria Bioscience. The company develops rice seeds that are genetically reprogrammed to produce human serum albumin, a protein found in blood, or lactoferrin, an iron-binding protein found in human milk. The proteins are then extracted for use as therapeutics.
According to trial evidence, Zhang stole hundreds of the company’s rice seeds and stored them at his home in Manhattan, Kansas. In the summer of 2013, visitors from a crop research institute in China came to Zhang’s home, and Zhang also took them to tour research facilities in Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio. When the visitors returned home in August 2013, US Customs and Border Protection officers found seeds, including ones belonging to Ventria, in their luggage. Last February, Zhang was convicted of one count of conspiracy to steal trade secrets, one count of conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property, and one count of interstate transportation of stolen property.
“Ventria invested years of research and tens of millions of dollars to create a new and beneficial product,” says US Attorney McAllister in statement. “It is vital that we protect such intellectual property from theft and exploitation by foreign interests.”
As CRISPR gene editing only edits the genome and does not insert foreign genetic material from other species the light hand of regulation may be considered as adequate, or does it need more regulation? So far it seems that less is adequate, which is generally accepted by many involved in new crop and horticulture variety devlopment. The following article is a brief, but relevant take on the subject from The Scientist online magazine. This attitude is likely to influence other countries regulatory agencies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA Will Not Regulate CRISPR-Edited Crops
Restrictions will remain on transgenic plants, which contain artificially inserted genes from other species.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will not regulate plants that have been modified through genome editing, according to a statement released last week (March 28) by the agency.
In the announcement, the USDA states that it won’t oversee the use of genetically altered plants, as long as they could have also been developed through traditional breeding methods, such as cross-breeding or selecting for desirable properties. The agency adds that genome editing allows breeders to introduce new traits more precisely, and at a faster rate.
“With this approach, USDA seeks to allow innovation when there is no risk present,” US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue says in the statement. “Plant breeding innovation holds enormous promise for helping protect crops against drought and diseases while increasing nutritional value and eliminating allergens.”
MIT Technology Review notes that transgenic crops—plants that contain artificially inserted genes from other species—will still be regulated.
This announcement comes as good news to biotech companies using CRISPR to modify plants. According to Wired, this move will “[shave] years and tens of millions of dollars off the cost of developing a designer plant.”
“Having this consistent position enables smaller companies and academic labs to form this ecosystem of innovation to bring options to consumers,” Federico Tripodi, CEO of Calyxt, a Minnesota-based biotech that has already developed soybeans that produce oil low in trans fats that can be cooked at high heat, tells Wired.
Whether gene-edited plants require special labeling is still unclear. “Bioengineered foods are defined by containing genetic material that could not otherwise have been conventionally bred or obtained in nature,” Deepti Kulkarni, a former member of the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel who currently works at Sidley Austin, a corporate law firm in the U.S., tells Wired. “If USDA is construing the language this way, there is some suggestive signaling that these products might not be subject to disclosure.”
The appeal in a 2 to 1 judgment supported the original decision, which the organic grower, Steve Marsh lost, in essence supporting the use of GM crops near organic crops. The judgments need careful reading in extending the outcomes to more general situations, but does essentially support the co-existence of both options in the farming community, but not necessarily without some planning to ensure the co-existence of both systems. So far it has been a lawyers picnic - with costs on both sides now apparently exceeding [ by some margin] over $1 million Australian dollars. My view was that it would go to the High Court, and it is seemingly looking as if it might, even though all judgments so far have gone against the organic farmer, and by some implication, the Australian organic certifying agency, which uses an absolute zero tolerance for GM contamination, which is different to many other countries where reality allows a very, very, tiny contamination level. essentially a non meaningful amount of GM contamination, which could be random. A High Court challenge would be very expensive, and the organic farmer is already potentially liable for over A$0.8 million in legal expenses for the defendant- which could mean loss of the farm. A complex story that is not yet over.
Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA) chair Ken Matthews says some Australian governments are “gutless” when it comes to giving farmers access to genetically modified (GM) crops. The former secretary of both the Australian agriculture and transport departments made the no-nonsense observation in a detailed outline of global and domestic attitudes on biotechnology at the National Farmers' Federation Congress in Canberra last week. Mr Matthews summed up by saying Australia suffers from not having a more objective, science-based discussion about agricultural biotechnology. “It’s really important that Australia has practicing farmers speak up for agricultural biotechnology because it’s practicing farmers that will be persuasive.” The ongoing anti-GM campaign is one of the “big risks” facing the technology’s development, he said. “There is a great suspicion of science and scientists in public debate in Australia and there has been a very effective campaign by NGOs (non-government organisations) which has influenced public opinion. “As a result, what worries me is that environmentally responsible farmers - who tend in many other areas to be leaders of farm opinion - can often be ambivalent about GM. “The pro-GM constituency among farmers is therefore not as strong as it could be in Australia.”
Governments need to lead
Mr Matthews said attitudes held by the general public, consumers, environmentalists and media were also central problems in the GM debate. But his strongest criticism was reserved for various governments that refuse to allow GM crops to be cultivated, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. “Some governments in Australia are – and I use this word carefully – gutless,” he said. “There are total bans on GM in South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT,” he said. “There are moratoriums in WA and NSW but there are certainly exemptions for that. In my view they (total bans) aren’t rationally based; they aren’t properly founded in science. “Those moratoria need to be ended and we need to avoid further mandatory labelling requirements, unless they can be justified.” Hinting at the recent high profile legal case involving neighbouring organic and GM farmers, Steve Marsh and Mike Baxter in Kojonup WA, Mr Matthews said the problem with reconciling organic standards and GM crops also “needs to be tackled”. He said there were three inescapable truths about biotechnology: the first being that it provides a critical opportunity to lift the productivity, profitability and sustainability of Australian agriculture over the next 20 years. Secondly, he said biotechnology was critical to meeting rapidly rising global food needs. And thirdly, biotechnology will inevitably continue to attract “suspicion and opposition” in some community sectors, slowing its development. Mr Matthews said that opposition was based on four key concerns: food safety; environmental damage; “agrochemical industry domination” and “a roundup of ethical and religious issues”. However, he said science delivered a very clear message about the safety of GM technology.
GM safety scientifically proven
Mr Matthews said more than 100 of the world’s independent science oversight bodies, including “very authoritative and credible organisations” in the US and Europe, shared a consensus that GM crops are “as safe as conventional varieties - and often safer because of the extensive approval process they need to go through”. “The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of GM safety, assuming that we continue with the sound regulatory processes that we have,” he said. “There have now been 3 trillion meals (consumed) involving or including GM and there’s been not one recorded case of harm. “There have been 70 billion animals which have been feeding on GM feed of some sort, and not one recorded case of harm.” Mr Matthews said a recent European review of over 1700 scientific studies around the world about environmental impacts of GM concluded that there was little or no evidence GM crops caused negative environmental impacts. “To me, as a student of public policy, it’s really interesting that the environment movement is very keen for science to be heard in the climate change debate - but where the science is very clear, no one seems to want to know about biotechnology,” he said. Mr Matthews faced a question from the floor at the NFF Congress from NSW Farmers executive councillor Gai Marshall, referring to the controversial Seralini rat study on GM corn, which purported to find the GM feed caused tumour growth. Ms Marshall said she wasn’t against growing GM but wanted to see greater traceability. Mr Matthews said the Seralini piece of science had been retracted. “It has been rejected, it has been withdrawn,” he said. “The peer review, the second time around, found it totally discredited.”
A solution to global food security?
Mr Matthews said the problems GM could solve were “unprecedented in history”. He said there are huge farm business opportunities from potential GM products like self-fertilising plants that could “revolutionise agriculture and certainly would decouple agriculture from the oil industry”. GM crops also had a key role to play in aiding the future food demand task as the world’s population grows from 7.2 billion now to 9.6 billion by 2050, with decreasing land and water to develop globally - 800 million people already go to bed hungry each night and 1 billion people are chronically undernourished, he said. “In the meantime, if I can be a bit provocative, there are some pretty comfortable western based NGOs which continue to oppose and to slow down biotechnology, on non-scientific, without evidence grounds,” he said. Mr Matthews said a striking example of that argument was the fact 250 million children are currently suffering from vitamin A deficiency but GM food crops with existing solutions “are having trouble getting mobilised”. “Norman Borlaug, said to be the father of the green revolution, said once that if the naysayers do stop agricultural GM they might actually precipitate those famines and crises they’ve been predicting for years,” he said. Mr Matthews said the technology’s uptake was unprecedented, with 79 per cent of global soybean area and 70pc of global cotton area now GM. “Growers are certainly not changing their mind and going back after they trial GM,” he said. “Over the last 200 years there have been several waves of innovation in agriculture such as mechanisation, conventional plant breeding, chemical fertilisers and chemical herbicides. “But none of them has been adopted as rapidly as GM seeds and I can tell you that animal-based GM is coming up very fast behind them. “One eighth of global farm land is now GM, so this is a sort of mega bus that will not be stoppable.”
Mr Matthews said GM offers varieties with production benefits like faster growth rates and yields, drought tolerance, pesticide reduction and nutrient efficiency. He said exciting work is also happening to generate varieties with consumer and health benefits like foods with fewer saturated fats, zero allergens, increased dietary fibre, reduced natural toxins, higher protein levels, built in vaccines, cholesterol management, and vitamin A. “Benefits do flow to big biotech companies but perversely the regulatory costs - as a consequence of pressure from the opponents of GM - now make approvals just out of reach for anyone but the big firms,” he said. “As an example, a single new GM trait may now cost $139 million, including $35 million just for the approvals part of that, and around the world it takes five-and-a-half years on average to gain a single new approval. “Are those costs and time problems squeezing out public good innovations such as environmental public health innovations or small market GM innovations?”
Need to build trust
Mr Matthews said Australia grew GM canola and GM cotton and had great strengths in the area, with a world class regulatory system and plant breeding expertise. But he said a three-part plan was needed to help overcome the slow progress of biotechnology development. He said a constituency of biotechnology supporters was needed to build understanding of the potential benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and society as a whole. “We need to build community confidence and trust in Australia’s regulatory arrangements,” he said. “We do need to be respectful of ethical concerns about biotechnology, but at the same time we need to give voice to the beneficiaries, and I think of those kids in Africa. “When people are talking grandly about ethical concerns about biotechnology I worry about starving kids in Africa. “We need to focus research more on benefits to consumers, to the environment, to society and we need to find some champions.” [ based on an article in the online edition of Qld Country Life 4 Nov 2014]
I think on balance
that the work probably does not adequately convince me that the GM corn is a
prime culprit causing harm to the animals [ in this case rats]. Probably
too many confounding factors involved to be a clearcut decision.
BUT……..publishing does open the arguments and debate to others, and that it
does. But logical open debate is how science moves forward. Let it
continue!
The article is
sourced from Queensland Country Life, but there are comments from elsewhere.
Republication of the infamous Seralini study on the toxicity of
genetically modified (GM) food crops has been met with renewed criticism from
the global scientific community.
French researcher Gilles Seralini’s paper into the toxicity of
glyphosate-resistant GM maize on rats was initially published by Food and
Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, then retracted by the journal in
December 2013 after scathing reviews from the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) and the Australian biotech sector.
It is being republished on 24 June in Environmental Sciences
Europe, an Open Access journal, but without significant alteration.
The authors claimed their study showed GM maize causes tumours in rats,
but the paper’s design and methodology was pilloried on first publication,
primarily for lack of controls.
Alan McHughen, plant biotechnologist at the College of Natural and
Agricultural Sciences, UC Riverside, USA, said the number of rats used was too
small to detect a meaningful difference in treatments – and that this had not
changed with republication of the material. “For those not familiar, it’s as if Seralini tossed a coin two times,
and the coin came up ‘heads’ both times,” Dr McHughen said. “With this result, Seralini is trying to convince us that he has a magic
coin that only comes up ‘heads’.
Dr McHughen noted the strain of rats used (Sprague-Dawley) have a
natural predisposition to form tumours, regardless of treatment. “Seralini has not and can not justify this fatal error in experimental
design.”
Matthew Cossey, chief executive at CropLife Australia, said the
scientific community would not accept "junk science". “The claims made in the report contradicted the vast weight of evidence
in the form of hundreds of independent, peer reviewed studies and decades of
research, which show that approved GM crops are as safe as their conventional
counterparts,” he said.
Senior Lecturer in the University of Adelaide School of Medicine Sciences,
Dr Ian Musgrave, said the “major flaws in this study still remain”.
Dr Musgrave said Professor Seralini used the wrong controls and failed
to consistently take into account dose response or measured outcomes. “The GM corn had no effect on the number of tumours - Roundup
(glyphosate) even decreased the number of tumours in male rats, as did the
combination of Roundup and GM corn in male rats... (with) no consistent effect
in female rats.
“This shows that all we are seeing in these results is due to random
variation in a poorly controlled experiment.”
Associate Professor Peter Dearden, Director of Genetics at the
University of Otago in New Zealand, said the paper being published was
“identical to the first one”. However, he said the flawed study raised some
interesting points which should be further developed with proper methodology. “The paper was, in my mind, inconclusive, but pointed a direction in
which future research could go,” Prof Dearden said. “Inconclusive data is no reason to retract a peer-reviewed and published
paper. “Retracting the original paper in this unusual way has not served the
scientific process well. All good science is a debate, and one that should be
held publically in published journals. Only through open publication, replication
and exchange of scientific data can we use science effectively. “Controversial studies should not be buried because of public argument.
They should be investigated, repeated, and new data published to either
disprove or support the original findings. Only then do we get a clear and
robust argument.”
Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said there had been a concerted effort
to discredit Prof Seralini’s work by the pro-GM lobbyists, and the Seralini
study met none of the scientific grounds for retraction. “The guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing established by
the Committee on Publication Ethics... state that the only grounds for a
journal to retract a paper are clear evidence that the findings are unreliable,
honest error or plagiarism - and this study meets none of these criteria.”
The Safe Food Foundation (SFF) welcomed the republication as
"vindication of Seralini's work", saying the study raised serious
issues about the safety of glyphosate and GM crops. SFF director Scott Kinnear said renewed focus on the Seralini study -
coming on the heels of organic farmer Steve Marsh's appeal - highlighted
deficiencies in regulatory assessments for safety.
Mr Marsh unsuccessfully sued his GM-growing neighbour for damages after
alleged GM cross-contamination of his crop. "Justice Martin commented that there were no safety issues with the
GM canola grown (in the Marsh v Baxter case)," Mr Kinnear said. "We disagree with Justice Martin and find that this study is
aligned with other studies that point to disruption of the normal hormonal and
fertility systems in laboratory animals exposed to low levels of Roundup and
GMOs."
GM: from the field to the lab......and back to the field!!
PETER LANGRIDGE - AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR PLANT FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS
23 Jun, 2014
GM canola seed: GM canola planting will rise in Australia this year.
Breeders are always looking for new sources of variation
Welcome to GM in Australia, a The Conversation series looking at the facts, ethics, regulations and research into genetically modified (GM) crops. In this first instalment, Peter Langridge describes two GM techniques: selective breeding and genetic engineering.
GENETIC modification (GM) sounds very laboratory-based – people in white coats inserting and deleting genes – but the vast majority of GM work was completed in the field through selective breeding.
Early Middle Eastern farmers collected grain from natural grasslands, but they needed to time their harvest very carefully. If they were too early the grain wouldn’t store well, and if they were too late the grain would spread over the ground making collection difficult.
At some stage, one of these early farmers must have noticed that some heads remained fixed on their stems even after the grain was fully dry. He obviously didn’t understand this at the time, but these were plants with a mutation in the genes controlling seed dispersal.
Farmers began preferentially choosing plants with this useful mutation and planting them, perhaps the first case of breeding and selecting for a novel trait.
Systematic breeding really began in the early 1900s when scientists rediscovered Silesian monk Gregor Mendel’s groundbreaking work on genetic inheritance in peas.
Breeding involves utilising genetic variation to produce new combinations of genes and gene variants. A breeder will cross two different lines and then select offspring that have improved performance.
Breeders are always looking for new sources of variation, normally from within the elite germplasm pool – that is, within established varieties. Many important traits, such as disease resistance, are controlled by single genes and can be crossed into elite lines, with only the resistant offspring selected.
But for many crops the level of diversity available within the elite germplasm pool is very narrow and breeders must look further afield for novel variation. This search led breeders to explore land races (varieties grown by traditional farmers) and even wild relatives (undomesticated progenitors of our modern crops).
In many cases crosses between the wild relatives and modern lines will not produce normal seeds, but the embryos can often be isolated from the developing seed and grown in sterile tissue culture to produce viable, fertile plants.
This technique, called embryo rescue, has been widely used and many modern cultivars contain genes from wild relatives.
The normal number of genes present in a crop plant is around 30,000 to 40,000 – the same as for humans. In making the crosses all 30,000 genes from the wild relative are introduced but the breeder may only want one gene.
The genes are linked along chromosomes with each chromosome carrying several thousand genes. The breeders need to break up the chromosomes from the wild relative into small fragments so that only the desired region is transferred – a process called chromosome engineering.
This can take several decades of work, making the use of wide crosses technically difficult and slow. Breeders want other methods of generating useful variation.
Engineering mutations
In the 1950s the idea of inducing mutations became an important technique for creating new variation. This involved using ionising radiation, such as X or gamma rays, or chemical mutagens.
These techniques produce random damage to the genetic information in the plant by changing the DNA directly or knocking out segments of the genome (the genetic make-up). Most mutations are deleterious, and the mutagenesis usually generates many thousands of unwanted changes, so the clean-up can be slow.
After exposing the plants to the mutagen, the breeders need to select for the beneficial mutations and remove the deleterious mutations.
Scientifically the ideal solution would be to be able to take a gene from any source and introduce it into your crop plant to change the plant’s characteristics. This would allow breeders to use variation from diverse sources and make changes just one gene at a time without the extensive collateral damage done by mutagenesis or wide crosses. This is what genetic engineering offers.
The first genetically engineered crops were produced in the 1980s and, as in all areas of science, the technology continues to advance. The most widely used method today takes advantage of a natural DNA transfer mechanism.
Several groups of soil bacteria are able to engineer plants for their own benefit. These bacteria transfer a segment of their genome into the plant’s genome so that the transformed plant cells will proliferate and produce compounds that only the bacteria can use. In this way the bacteria control the plant development to produce nutrients for the bacteria.
The mechanisms for this type of natural genetic engineering are now well understood, allowing scientists to change the DNA segment transferred so that the genes causing altered plant growth are removed and new genes inserted.
How does this work practically? In a laboratory the scientist will design and build a DNA sequence containing specific sequences that delineate the region of DNA to be transferred (the left and right borders). They then insert the gene of interest and usually a selectable marker, such as resistance to a herbicide.
Agrobacterium tumefaciens attaching to a plant cell.Wikimedia, CC BY
This construct is then introduced into a bacteria called Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which readily takes up DNA. The bacteria are then applied to growing plant tissues in sterile culture.
After a period the bacteria are removed and the plant tissues placed onto media containing the herbicide. Only the plant cells that have been transformed (those that took up the construct from the bacterium) are able to grow and divide.
These cells are allowed to multiply and divide until they produce plants, which are taken out of sterile culture to a glasshouse where they can grow to maturity. The genes that have been transferred will now be included in the genetic make-up of the plant.
Different species and even varieties will differ in their ability to take up DNA from the bacterium and to regenerate normal plants. Where in the genome the new DNA inserts is usually random but will preferentially occur in regions containing active genes.
Extensive growth trials and evaluation are needed to ensure that the transgenic or genetically engineered plant behaves as expected.
… and back to the field
In Australia all aspects of genetic engineering research are closely regulated. The researcher, organisation and facilities used must all be licensed and meet tight standards.
Before a field trial can be grown, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) conducts a detailed risk assessment of the genes used, the reasons for the trial, and the design and management of the trial site.
The OGTR have issued 103 licenses for field trials covering 14 different crops. In Australia 37 genetically engineered crops have been approved for commercial cultivation for seven different species, but only GM cotton (eight different events) and canola (three events) are grown to any great extent.
The resistance to GM crops in many parts of the world has encouraged scientists to look for alternative techniques for making targeted changes to the genetic make-up of crops and other organisms.
For example, a new technique called “genome editing” allows us to make specific changes to native genes within the plant that are essentially identical to the changes induced by mutagenesis but at only one site rather than all over the genome. Mutagenesis is widely used and is not subject to regulation – will the same apply to genome editing?
There are other developments that are also challenging the community’s views on new technologies. How will people feel about GM crops where a native gene has been isolated, changed and re-inserted (a process known as cisgenics)?
What about using GM rootstocks engineered for resistance to root diseases, but grafted with non-GM scion so that they produce non-GM apples or avocados?
These questions are now challenging the regulators since the first examples are starting to become available.
Peter Langridge, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, receives research funding from Pioneer/Dupont, the Australian Research Council, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, the South Australian government, Australia/India Strategic Research Fund and the US AID program. He provides advice to several public sector research organisation in Europe, North America and to international agricultural aid programs. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. -------------------------------------------------- This is a very readable overview of breeding using genetic engineering techniques. It is increasingly common as a technique to generate variation, with more conventional selection and assessment being the finishing options. Genetics is one of the fields where big data really first appeared. More is better for plant breeding, it seems.......a real numbers game. More plants to select from and the chances of both qualitative and quantitative traits being adequately assessed!
Australia as a food bowl for Asia is a concept that just will not seem to go away.
Technically it is possible to increase food production here in Australia but it might need that magical mystery commodity that often is elusive - WATER.
The latest impressario advocating the food bowl concept is Anthony Pratt. I think he has already proven to be a useful business person after shouldering the mantle of his father at Visy. But they have interests in irrigation piping, and have been involved in the concept of piping rather than channels for irrigation water in Victoria. Pragmatic views or vested business interests?
[the Austalian is pay walled but think this should be available freely; it might be seen elsewhere]
The food processing side does need to do more but are getting screwed through the major supermarkets and imported manufactured product at low prices. But......it is interesting to hear that many consumers want Australian grown and processed foods. Are Chinese vegetables to be trusted, given the issues with food tainting and quality, contaminated land and corruption generally in China? Many consumers distrust processed food from Asia due to poorer food regulation and safety quality issues.
The "more agriculture / horticulture and food processing"concept is important, but we need to grow our strengths.
Broadacre crops, including ideas related to precision farming and controlled traffic and livestock production [beef and lamb notably, with chicken too] are two vital areas that can grow without a lot of angst. With GM crops possibly in the mix as well, especially now that attitudes to this concept seem to be slowly moderating in Europe. While dairy is getting trashed at the moment over local milk prices, the industry has been internationally focussed for some time and there are growth options in temperate areas - some are being exercised by progressive growers, with sales to Asia, seen as a growth market.
Meat processing is a labour intensive process, although that is changing, and the new AACo site in Dariwn might showcase some of that and with lower process costs to come from it. But prices for output is important and need to give a decent return to producers - a tricky business in a world market with options for multi location purchases by Asian countries.
AUSVEG the peak body for vegetable industries, is hopeful that growth is achievable, but where? Water water water - a major need in temperate Australia. Vegetable and fruit growers have had a tough time recently but they can grow, but not maybe rapidly, and overhanging debt might be a drag.
Patch development is a concept that could offer some options in north Australia - with suitable areas of modest size being developed with appropriate soil and water resources [ see report of northern Australia land and water task force of 2010]. Some are under development already with a good example the work of Centre Farm in Alice Springs. More have been identified in a general sense already, by other entities. And land tenure issues need to be rectified and adjusted across the north.
Qualified scientists in agriculture have diminished and R and D in the sector is declining - that would need reversing, and will take time.
Achieving the size advocated in today's newspaper article is many years off. But playing to our strength is important and agriculture in the broad sense is one of Australia's strengths. But surely we can do more in the value adding area.
Not to mention the need for better market access for our agricultural products through some free trade agreements, currently stalled - think Japan and China.
FLICKR, BLOGTREPRENEURChinese scientist Weiqiang Zang was sentenced yesterday (April 4) to 121 months in federal prison for conspiring to steal genetically modified rice seeds from Ventria Bioscience while working at its Kansas-based facility. Zhang planned to give the seeds to a research institute in China, according to a statementfrom the US Justice Department.
PIXABAY, ANALOGICUS
Seralini is trying to convince us that
he has a magic coin that only comes up ‘heads’
Breeders are always looking for new sources of variation
