Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
Mon May 13, 2013, 03:55 AM May 2013

Cambridge-based scientists develop 'superwheat'

British scientists say they have developed a new type of wheat which could increase productivity by 30%.

The Cambridge-based National Institute of Agricultural Botany has combined an ancient ancestor of wheat with a modern variety to produce a new strain.

In early trials, the resulting crop seemed bigger and stronger than the current modern wheat varieties.

It will take at least five years of tests and regulatory approval before it is harvested by farmers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22498274

NB The process required no genetic modification of the crops.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cambridge-based scientists develop 'superwheat' (Original Post) dipsydoodle May 2013 OP
It's fiber can kick your ass! nt Javaman May 2013 #1
"Required no genetic modification" NickB79 May 2013 #2
Every time there is a breakthrough in agriculture truebluegreen May 2013 #3
That's my thought as well. It's a positive feedback loop. GliderGuider May 2013 #4
This isn't true any more Yo_Mama May 2013 #5
my first though too stuntcat May 2013 #6

NickB79

(19,233 posts)
2. "Required no genetic modification"
Mon May 13, 2013, 02:05 PM
May 2013

Um, hybridization IS a form of genetic modification, in that the genes of the offspring have been modified through crossbreeding between two different strains. It's just not one that requires lab equipment to facilitate.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
4. That's my thought as well. It's a positive feedback loop.
Mon May 13, 2013, 03:32 PM
May 2013

More food => More people => More food => More people => ...

Population activists think we can break the feedback loop by convincing people not to have more kids, even though there's enough food and material comforts to permit it. I think we can slow, but not stop the rate of increase. Turning the population curve negative voluntarily is going to be both politically and psychologically impossible, IMO.

Can we break that feedback loop on the food side without hurting anyone? I personally don't think so.

So we can't reverse population growth, and we can't stop the growth of the food supply because there are already hungry people in the world, but if we keep producing more food the population will automatically keep growing. Can you spell "hooped"?

stuntcat

(12,022 posts)
6. my first though too
Mon May 13, 2013, 07:50 PM
May 2013
We've figured out over and over how to produce more food. It means the same thing all the time.

And meanwhile 40,000 people will continue dying of starvation every day, while we feed millions of mass-farmed animals way more than it would take to save their lives. That's my species! #humanity
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Cambridge-based scientist...