NEWS FROM
PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM
 |
 |
Published monthly on behalf of SPPS by Wiley-Blackwell.
 |
|
|
|
 |
Comforting proteins
|
A dehydrin protein from Rhododendron plays a key role in freezing tolerance due to protection from cellular dehydration caused by extracellular freezing. Rajeev Arora and co-workers from Iowa State University have shown that purified RcDhn5-encoded acidic SK2 type dehydrin can protect enzyme activity against dehydration in in viro assays. When the gene was constitutively expressed in Arabidopsis, the transgenic plants exhibited increased freezing tolerance withour prior cold acclimation. With cold acclimation, however, the effect was less pronounced. This is apparently due to dilution of the Rhododendron dehydrin by less effective native dehydrins.
Read full article free: Peng et al. (December 2008) Physiologia Plantarum 134: 583-597
|
|
NEWS IN BRIEF
FROM OTHER JOURNALS
|
|
Aphids thrive on biofuels
|
|
Source: Landis et al. (23 December 2008) PNAS 105: 20552-20557
|
|
|
|
Pattern-creating microtubules
|
|
Source: Hamant et al (12 December 2008) Science 322: 1650-1655
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organic or GMO?
|
| |
|
|
Will organic produce or transgenic crops save humanity for the food and climate crises? From Financial Times.
|
|
|
Facing two global crises of immense impact on humanity - the food crisis and global warming - agricultural practices have once again become a central issue of debate. An emerging middle class in China, Asia and South America wants meat from grain-fed animals, but at the same time more and more farmers are growing maize and sugar cane for production of biofuels rather than food or feed. In June 2008, Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN, called for a 50% increase in global food production by 2030, and Monsanto - the worlds leading producer of transgenic seed - was quick to offer its assistance. Claiming that transgenic seeds would be part of the solution, a company spokesman promised to deliver seeds of maize, soybeans and cotton with two times the yield and 30% less requirement of water and fertilizer within that timeframe.
But not everybody agrees, that GMO is the way to go. While transgenic crops blossom in many parts of the world, Europeans have remained skeptical and until this summer, GMO's were hardly discussed in the media (see former article in SPPS Newsletter). The opponents claim that sustainable organic farming is the only responsible solution, since the environment is already challenged by climate change. But are things really that simple? Are organic farming always friendly to the environment and the climate, and are GMO's really the top yielding crops that can deliver? A couple of scientific reports that emerged during 2008 indicate that the answer is more complex.
| |
|
|
The EU organic farming logo offers consumers' confidence that the product ensures compliance with the EU organic farming regulation. From ec.europa.eu
|
|
|
In his Master thesis, geography student Jakob Majcher from University of Copenhagen, calculated the total emission of CO2 from beer produced by organic or conventional farming. The conclusion was that the organic beer had a 12% higher impact on the environment with regard to emission of the greenhouse gas. The main reason is a lower yield from organic barley and hops, which requires a larger acreage to grow the raw materials needed for production of the same amount of beer. This effect is enforced by the fact that the organic hops has a weaker taste so more raw material is needed. On top of this, organic hops for the Danish beer was grown in Tasmania and had to be transported over a long distance, and since more intensive harrowing and other field work is required for organic farming the total use of fossil fuels exceeded that of conventionally farmed hops and barley.
Evaluation of the benefits of organic farming depends to a great extend on how one will balance land use efficiency vs. environmental stress. In other words, is it better to grow low yielding organic crops that uses very little harmful pesticides on a large field, or to grow higher yielding GMO's requiring more pesticides on a small field and then use the rest of the land for recreational use or 'wild nature'? Another dilemma is the energy use. Some researchers have pointed out that imported organic produce emits more CO2 than locally grown crops from intensive farming. And yet others say that this doesn't really matter, since the bigger part of the CO2 emission comes from the consumers car, when he drives to the supermarket.
| |
|
|
GM soybean yield less without manganese, but more when the nutrient is applied. From www.ipni.net
|
|
|
Also the idea of high yielding GMO's got a blow during the year, as the British newspaper The Independent cited a scientific report for concluding that genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops. They referred to a three year study by Professor Barney Gordon at University of Kansas where he was comparing how conventional and Monsantos glyphosate-resistant soybeans reacted to manganese fertilizers. The newspaper concluded that the "GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields." Though data from the report could give such an indication, Barney Gordon found this a gross misrepresentation of his research.
In a statement published shortly after the news had appeared in media all over the world, the scientist stated that his experiments were designed only to compare manganese accumulation of two varieties of soybean, and that the results could not be expanded to conclude on conventional vs GMO. Furthermore, Monsantos soybean only gave a lower yield when no manganese were applied, whereas it actually yielded 8% more at the highest rate of manganese fertilization where the conventional variety was depressed.
| |
|
|
The 2006 report from USDA on the experiences of growing GM crops. From www.ers.usda.gov
|
|
|
In 2006 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a survey on the experiences from the first decade of growing GMO's and the impression was generally positive. Herbicide tolerant cotton and corn was associated with higher returns, while insect resistance in the same crops only paid off under prevalent pest manifestation. Herbicide tolerant soybeans, on the other hand, did not direcctly improve the farmers returns, but the simpler handling of GM soy allowed them to save management time and thus to generate a higher off-farm income. Adopters of GMO's also used less pesticide and the herbicide resistant crops seem to reduce soil erosion due to less need for tillage.
At present there seems not to be any single solution to the food and climate crises - whether organic or GMO crops - and probably the best solution will be a careful and well-balanced mix of the two farming practices.
|
|
