I don't consider this good news!!! I saw this article on CNN. It makes me want to scream at the scientist.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11 ... index.html
Love, Jean
Old gene in wheat rediscovered, more protien
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Old gene in wheat rediscovered, more protien
Be kind to everyone, because you never know what battles they are fighting.
Jean,
That "discovery" sounds a little shady to me. First off, there are very few nutrients in wheat straw. For example, it only contains less than 4% crude protein, (about 3.5%, actually), and compared with the grain, it is very light. Therefore, it would be very difficult to transfer any significant amount of protein to the grain, from the straw, even with very high conversion, because, compared with the mass of the protein in the grain, there is very little in the straw that is even available, on a percentage of grain weight basis. Also, there are very low amounts of iron and zinc in wheat straw.
When balancing feedlot rations for cattle, for example, I usually disregard the contributions that the wheat straw will make to the nutrient value of the final ration, because it's almost negligible. Wheat straw is useful in the ration primarily as roughage, (fiber), and little more.
Also, he says that the new wheat varieties that they have bred are not genetically modified. Well, I beg to differ on that claim, because the title of the article clearly makes that claim pure fiction. True, they are genetically modified by a natural process, (crossbreeding), but the new varieties are indeed genetically modified, in that the product of the cross carries a gene that was not in commercial wheat varieties previously on the market. While it is true that the gene was in the wild parent stock, it was not available in the commercial varieties that it was crossed with. He's either "bending" the rules of accurate reporting, in order to make his product sound more appealing, or he's a sloppy writer.
You're right, though, enhancing the protein content of wheat is probably the origin of our current civilizations' increasing gluten intolerance problem, in the first place. It will most likely only serve to make the problem worse, by making it more likely that more people will become gluten sensitive, in the future.
Love,
Tex
That "discovery" sounds a little shady to me. First off, there are very few nutrients in wheat straw. For example, it only contains less than 4% crude protein, (about 3.5%, actually), and compared with the grain, it is very light. Therefore, it would be very difficult to transfer any significant amount of protein to the grain, from the straw, even with very high conversion, because, compared with the mass of the protein in the grain, there is very little in the straw that is even available, on a percentage of grain weight basis. Also, there are very low amounts of iron and zinc in wheat straw.
When balancing feedlot rations for cattle, for example, I usually disregard the contributions that the wheat straw will make to the nutrient value of the final ration, because it's almost negligible. Wheat straw is useful in the ration primarily as roughage, (fiber), and little more.
Also, he says that the new wheat varieties that they have bred are not genetically modified. Well, I beg to differ on that claim, because the title of the article clearly makes that claim pure fiction. True, they are genetically modified by a natural process, (crossbreeding), but the new varieties are indeed genetically modified, in that the product of the cross carries a gene that was not in commercial wheat varieties previously on the market. While it is true that the gene was in the wild parent stock, it was not available in the commercial varieties that it was crossed with. He's either "bending" the rules of accurate reporting, in order to make his product sound more appealing, or he's a sloppy writer.
You're right, though, enhancing the protein content of wheat is probably the origin of our current civilizations' increasing gluten intolerance problem, in the first place. It will most likely only serve to make the problem worse, by making it more likely that more people will become gluten sensitive, in the future.
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Wayne,
As I'm sure you know, the definition of Genetically Modified is that a gene from another source (plant or animal) is spliced into the plant's DNA. Selective breeding is what most food plants are. Selecting for desirable traits from wild ancestors. Almost every food that we eat is selectively breed; apples, corn, beans, plums, etc. The apple trees that Johnny Appleseed planted were only good for making a fermented beverage, not eating. People selected the best apple trees, with the most tasty apples, and crossed those to obtain what we consider apples today.
I even heard a story on PRS that talked about using heirloom vegetables because the newer varieties were genetically modified, which was the wrong term. I thought about writing, because even heirloom varieties were selectively breed, just longer ago.
Love, Jean
As I'm sure you know, the definition of Genetically Modified is that a gene from another source (plant or animal) is spliced into the plant's DNA. Selective breeding is what most food plants are. Selecting for desirable traits from wild ancestors. Almost every food that we eat is selectively breed; apples, corn, beans, plums, etc. The apple trees that Johnny Appleseed planted were only good for making a fermented beverage, not eating. People selected the best apple trees, with the most tasty apples, and crossed those to obtain what we consider apples today.
I even heard a story on PRS that talked about using heirloom vegetables because the newer varieties were genetically modified, which was the wrong term. I thought about writing, because even heirloom varieties were selectively breed, just longer ago.
Love, Jean
Be kind to everyone, because you never know what battles they are fighting.
Hi Jean,
Yes, I realize that most people think of genetic modification as "gene splicing". However, that's simply a modern bastardization of the term. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to consider definitions in their full context, rather than limited versions.
Here's a quote from Wilipedia, under genetic modification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticall ... d_organism
Love,
Tex
P S Hey, I didn't know that about Johnny Appleseed. What was he - some kind of party animal? LOL.
Yes, I realize that most people think of genetic modification as "gene splicing". However, that's simply a modern bastardization of the term. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to consider definitions in their full context, rather than limited versions.
Here's a quote from Wilipedia, under genetic modification:
The emphasis with the red color is mine, of course. My point is that the world did not begin with the discovery and development of gene splicing, which the popular definition implies. Actually, as we all know, the world began long before that point in time. (How quickly we forget). LOL.The term generally does not cover organisms whose genetic makeup has been altered by conventional cross breeding or by "mutagenesis" breeding, as these methods predate the discovery of the recombinant DNA techniques. Technically speaking, however, such techniques are by definition genetic modification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticall ... d_organism
Love,
Tex
P S Hey, I didn't know that about Johnny Appleseed. What was he - some kind of party animal? LOL.
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.