Science Decodes Wheat Genome

Recommended Videos

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
Source: The Independent. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genome-breakthrough-heralds-new-dawn-for-agriculture-2063308.html]
The Independent said:
In a scientific tour-de-force that has been hailed as the most significant breakthrough in wheat production since the cereal crop was cultivated by the first farmers more than 10,000 years ago, scientists have decoded the genome of the wheat plant.

As a result, new breeds of disease-resistant crops could be producing higher wheat yields in as little as five years' time, raising the prospect of lower bread prices and greater food security in a more populated world. And rather than guard their knowledge, the British scientists responsible for the research will today place a draft version of the genome online, making it available for free to wheat breeders around the world, who will be able to use it to speed up the creation of the new disease-resistant varieties that are urgently needed. Most wheat breeders currently rely on traditional methods of mixing new crop varieties ? techniques that have not changed substantially for hundreds of years.

Wheat production is under pressure, particularly this summer because of the failure of the Russian harvest. Yet world food production will have to increase by an estimated 50 per cent over the next 40 years if the growing global population is to be fed.

One leading scientist behind the British study said yesterday that knowing the wheat genome would revolutionise the conventional breeding of wheat. Breeders, he explained, will be able to take valuable shortcuts that reduce the amount of time it takes to breed essential new plant varieties resistant to disease and drought. This would not entail genetic modification, although the genome will also prove invaluable for scientists if they did want to directly change the DNA of the wheat plant.

Conventional breeding can exploit the information contained in the wheat genome to screen seeds for the genetic "markers" or signposts that indicate the presence of valuable genes, such as those for resistance to drought or disease.

"A process that now takes five or six years will take one or two years. It is quite possible in five years' time that a loaf of bread will be cheaper because of this," said Professor Neil Hall, a genome scientist at Liverpool University, one of the three research centres that carried out the study.

Professor Keith Edwards of the University of Bristol said the breakthrough was highly significant. "In a short space of time we have delivered most of the sequences necessary for plant breeders to identify genetic differences in wheat. The public release of the data will dramatically increase the efficiency of breeding new crop varieties," Professor Edwards said.

Wheat yields per hectare have increased threefold since Roman times, but over the past decade they have reached a plateau despite intensive efforts by the plant breeders who have struggled with the menace of constantly evolving wheat diseases. This is one reason why wheat production has failed to keep pace with increased demand.

"It has been estimated that in Europe, productivity needs to double to keep pace with demand and to maintain stable prices. We need to start breeding new varieties of wheat that will be important in five or 10 years' time," Professor Hall said.

"This means that we will be able to utilise the wheat genome to its full potential. It means that we can fully utilise what nature has given us." However Professor Hall added: "Unless global population is kept under control, nature may not be enough and we may have to use genetic modification because there is always going to be a limit to what you can get out of wheat."

Although wheat was one of the first domesticated crops, it has posed formidable problems for modern breeders, largely because of its complex genetics which are the result of the plant being a hybrid of three distinct species of wild grass. The 17 billion individual "letters" in the wheat genome ? which is more than five times larger than the human genome ? mean that it is one of the largest genomes to be sequenced. The draft sequence, covering 95 per cent of the wheat plant's DNA, was completed within a year of the start of the project, which cost £1.8m and was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

"Sequencing the human genome took 15 years to complete, but with huge advances in DNA technology, the wheat genome took only a year," Professor Hall said. "The information we have collected will be invaluable in tackling the problem of global food shortage."

He added: "The primary goal of this research was to help conventional plant breeders. But it may be that... genetic modification will also be necessary to boost yields."
Are GM crops really the answer? Is the problem really amount or is it just distribution? Is the only really useful GM making wheat resistant to natural disasters? Is this Bad News For the planet? [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sean-ogrady-what-is-good-news-for-hungry-people-may-not-be-good-news-for-the-planet-2063309.html] What do you think?

I'm personally still in the middle with this. I think that fairer distribution of food could alleviate a lot of problems, after all we throw away [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4443111.stm] so much! Then again, perhaps the burgeoning population could never be sated at current production levels. I don't really know.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,633
0
0
There's more than enough food to feed the entire world several times over, and world population is going to level out at about 9 billion. Starvation happens for reasons other than shortages of world food supply. These people probably just want to claim patents and market GM crops. "Look we're saving the world - no, really, honest" is a good marketing angle.
 

Timotei

The Return of T-Bomb
Apr 21, 2009
5,161
0
0
BonsaiK said:
There's more than enough food to feed the entire world several times over, and world population is going to level out at about 9 billion. Starvation happens for reasons other than shortages of world food supply.
Actually, when one thinks about it, the human population might actually decline over the next century.

Birth rates are now lower than they have ever been due to the lack of need for more children, thus once the older generations die out, logic dictates the human population will see a sharp decline followed by steady rise. There are what? 500 million to a billion baby boomers on the planet? So in the next 20 years we can expect them to die and be replaced in lesser numbers.

Human kind will probably expand its reaches into space before it reaches the 9 billion mark.
 

WINDOWCLEAN2

New member
Jan 12, 2009
1,057
0
0
Wait.
It seemed like he said that we will need GM food "Unless global population can be kept under control". So it's chemical food or death?

I vote dea......Chemical Food.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,633
0
0
Timotei said:
BonsaiK said:
There's more than enough food to feed the entire world several times over, and world population is going to level out at about 9 billion. Starvation happens for reasons other than shortages of world food supply.
Actually, when one thinks about it, the human population might actually decline over the next century.

Birth rates are now lower than they have ever been due to the lack of need for more children, thus once the older generations die out, logic dictates the human population will see a sharp decline followed by steady rise. There are what? 500 million to a billion baby boomers on the planet? So in the next 20 years we can expect them to die and be replaced in lesser numbers.

Human kind will probably expand its reaches into space before it reaches the 9 billion mark.
You could be right. Initial UN predictions for 2050 were 18 billion, but they've revised it down to 9 billion in recent years. They could indeed revise it down further depending on population trends.

People who are well-fed and living affluently don't tend to breed much, because they want to enjoy more leisure time and less screaming and nappy-chainging. Poor and destitute people tend to breed more - when there is no social security, your children become your social security, because they can be put to work once they reach a certain age, so you have lots of them. So the best thing we can do to control population is to increase global standards of living (war, disease etc doesn't actually work anywhere near as well - for example, Afghanistan is going through a population explosion right now).

Keep in mind that the baby boom didn't happen in every country in the world, just the ones affected by WWII, and none of these countries have high population growth right now anyway.
 

Jack and Calumon

Digimon are cool.
Dec 29, 2008
4,188
0
41
WINDOWCLEAN2 said:
Wait.
It seemed like he said that we will need GM food "Unless global population can be kept under control". So it's chemical food or death?

I vote dea......Chemical Food.
I vote both. Poisoned Chemical food. It will be hard to market, but some people will buy it. And more people will eat it.

OT: Okay. As long as it doesn't kill us, I'm fine.

Calumon: Who made the wheat a Game Master?
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
BonsaiK said:
(war, disease etc doesn't actually work anywhere near as well - for example, Afghanistan is going through a population explosion right now).
I was gonna say. Surely war has the opposite effect in the longer term? Sure, people may die, but then you have put those countries into a state of poverty (Especially in the case of WWII), where, as you say, more kids is a favourable option.

I believe there is a model for birth and death rates like this, lemme see if I can find the graph. Here we go:

 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,633
0
0
Danny Ocean said:
BonsaiK said:
(war, disease etc doesn't actually work anywhere near as well - for example, Afghanistan is going through a population explosion right now).
I was gonna say. Surely war has the opposite effect in the longer term? Sure, people may die, but then you have put those countries into a state of poverty (Especially in the case of WWII), where, as you say, more kids is a favourable option.

I believe there is a model for birth and death rates like this, lemme see if I can find the graph.
War tends to increase population, as people often start bonking as part of their "patriotic duty". Also, when someone bombs your neighbourhood, the lights and electricity go out, and your'e stuck in bomb shelters for hours on end, often there's not a lot else to do...

Good graph BTW.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,680
0
0
HG131 said:
This is good. Lower prices and safer food is ALWAYS good.
Say "no" to engineered food! Boycott bananas. This isn't the way nature intended! I figured I'd get those objections out of the way before people started bringing them up.

It's pretty interesting that they are freely publishing it so soon.
 

tomtom94

aka "Who?"
May 11, 2009
3,370
0
0
OH MY GOD SCIENTISTS TRYING TO END WORLD HUNGER THIS IS WRONG AND THEY MUST DIE!

My views on all genetic engineering on food: if it helps to end world hunger and doesn't result in unnecessary suffering for animals, it should be done and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking moron.
 

Bobzer77

New member
May 14, 2008
717
0
0
Danny Ocean said:
Is this Bad News For the planet? [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sean-ogrady-what-is-good-news-for-hungry-people-may-not-be-good-news-for-the-planet-2063309.html].
Can I just point out that the man who published that article writes:

Fast-moving rather than fast moving

adv-erse rather than adverse

and techn-ological rather than technological.

I think he's a bit of an idiot.
 

WINDOWCLEAN2

New member
Jan 12, 2009
1,057
0
0
Jack and Calumon said:
WINDOWCLEAN2 said:
Wait.
It seemed like he said that we will need GM food "Unless global population can be kept under control". So it's chemical food or death?

I vote dea......Chemical Food.
I vote both. Poisoned Chemical food. It will be hard to market, but some people will buy it. And more people will eat it.

OT: Okay. As long as it doesn't kill us, I'm fine.

Calumon: Who made the wheat a Game Master?
This is starting to remind me of an Eddie Izzard sketch about 'Cake or Death', But with less cake. (And More Wheat/poison)