Saw this on the news and thought it was pretty interesting. Not sure how to post a link, though. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=624&e=1&cid=624&u=/ap/20021021/ap_on_sc/exp_building_a_better_tree Basically it says that biotechnologists are working in concert with breeders to try and build better black walnut, black cherry and red oak trees.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story

Learn how synthetic panels can create watertight shower walls and tub surrounds — or a big problem.
Featured Video
How to Install Exterior Window TrimHighlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
why waste it on wood? they should invent a "money" tree.
listening for the secret.......searching for the sound...
You've got to define 'better'
They've been ranching black walnut genetics for several years now. The jury is still out on whether the wood will be as good. In general, I suspect the new varities are selected to grow faster which will almost always produce poorer wood quality.
Excellence is its own reward!
"Better" defining that would be a good start.
Unless someone can modify a tree into having two growth cycles and dormant cycles a year it seem to me that, as Piffin has pointed out, that you will have fast growing trees with poor wood or slower growing trees with good wood. Should genetics be able to rearrange this natural trade off the market for wood would likely collapse after the market reached saturation. Maybe vat grown wood to go with the vat grown meat and the vat grown citizens.
'Better' as defined in the article is a crop of trees that is faster growing, nicely grained, and disease resistant.
In reference to some of the other notes on this thread - 'genetic modification' is one of those ill-defined terms that causes people who actually agree to think they are disagreeing. As has been already stated, inserting genes in the lab can be a way to speed up the process, but that power involves a lot of responsibility as well. People seem to forget, though, that the more 'natural' (?) method of breeding is not idiot-proof either. Killer bees are the result of a selective breeding program in South America that went awry.
Because of the slow growth of these trees, selective breeding would be a daunting task, so I think the shortcut of the lab, if very well supervised, is warranted.
Interesting concept except I woory about the law.
Law of unintended consquences that is. We change corn, get a better product but butterflies die... whouda figured....
On the other hand I'm not a luddite so technology will help, but I wonder at what cost....
"We change corn, get a better product but butterflies die... "
That's not exactly true.
For the butterflies to die, several things had to happen.
First, the farmer had to use BT corn.
Second, there had to be milkweeds downwind of the field.
Third, there had to be a wind to blow the polen over to the milkweeds while the corn was pollenating.
Fourth, the monarch butterfly had to eat from the milkweeds during the polenation period. (A couple of weeks)
Then some of the butterflies might possibly die.
On the other hand - Don't use the BT corn, but spray for corn borers. Then ALL the butterflies in or near the field are killed. The media conveniently overllooked that fact when reporting about the story. I really wish I was less of a thinking man, and more a fool who's not afraid of rejection. [Billy Joel]
I don't know if we're arguing or discussing here. I was the first in thread to use the phrase 'genetic modification' and then defined how I used it. Others here with presumably more accurate scientific knowledge have corrected and/or enlightened me.
It appears that maybe I gave the impression that I had a different stand on the issues than I do. Mostly, I'm for examining them. I'd rather haver genetics working for us than pesticides by a hundred to one. I own Monsanto stock. I own other stock in biotech mutual funds. That's partly in hope of retirement profits but also partly because I believe that biotech and genetic modification has positive results waiting for us in the future. Maybe they can work on my cartilage to improve the disces in my back?
I'm looking forward, not back. Boss is right on that BT scenario. I'd rather a few Monarchs bite the dust than for me to be eating chemical residue or for people in the midqwest to be finding it in their watertable causing cancer and running health care / insurance costs sky high. Sorry, old monarch..
Excellence is its own reward!
speaking only for myself, pure discussion. The tone and thought-provoking commentary in the posts is refreshing.
Excellant point.
I can only learn from things that are discused here. At times I play the devils advocate just to help clarify my understanding, and I'm certain others do as well.
Oh? so now we find out that you were only playing devil's advocate with that Bush break thread???????LOL.
Excellence is its own reward!
Piffan,
What do you think? Do you think I'm secretely happy with the job the President has done?
Back to the topic at hand - Can Man build a better bush?.
Excellence is its own reward!
If you're talking "secretely" and "President" in the same sentence, it must be Bill C you're talking about. He's the only one since Kennedy that made secretions such a part of the White House.
(Hey, doesn't matter to me; I'm a Canuck, and I don't even know if our PM is alive)
Well made point.
However we've been spraying for decades and while the butterfly population has varied, there has never been such a massive reduction in butterflies.
Same point about misquito's,
A reduction in their number will mean a reduction in Purple Martin population and now we take one step closer to Silent spring.
We know how to do a lot of things I wonder if we have the wisdom to know if we should do them.
(example, A young three year old would know how to pull the trigger on a gun, I'm certain he doesn't have the wisdom not to)
Reduction in butterfly populations? Hadn't heard about that. Any idea what's caused it?
I also hadn't heard about any reductions in mosquito populations. I can live with less purple Martins if it means less West Nile virus.Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted;Persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. [Mark Twain]
I can see it now. Square trunked trees that grow 100' tall, perfectly straight and without branches (Cross with asparagus). They grow to full height in one season and are engineered to die at the base. They stand until dry and then snap off flush with the ground when they dry to 19%. Days after snapping off they begin to regrow from the base. Maybe a cross with bamboo as some types can grow 18" in a single day.
"Reduction in butterfly populations?"
yeah, that has happened to the massive population of monarch butterflys that migrate up and down the west coast. Current theories suggest that it is weather related.
Boss,
In the Last couple of years there were considerably fewer Monarch butterflies which all tend to migrate to one mountain in Mexico. Thus it's a rather dramatic example of the reduction of one species caused by man's interferance with nature.
Boss I'm with you, when those little buggers ( misquito's) are bitting me and drawing blood I wish they would go away, add the impact of west Nile and it would seem a reasonable trade-off.
However, there is a point where It's not just the Purple martins but thousands of other birds etc. Birds that have a benefical effect on us beyond the reduction in insects.
It's a complex subject and filled with chicken little types. I mean slowly we are able to increase the population of American Bald eagles after the impact of DDT. While we can't bring back the passenger pigeon or any of the thousands of species we have lost, we have shown that with care and a massive effort it is possible for Man to learn to live with mother nature without harming her too much.
What I can't understand is why conservatives who by their very nature would want to save what we have rather than waste it are so dead set against saving nature...
frenchy,
this is way off topic, but I'll throw it in anyways because I find it so powerful and awe inspiring.
The migration of the monarch from Mexico to the northwest takes 3 generations of monarch to complete. How is it that the 2nd and 3rd generation of monarchs know where to go? Clearly, it is just imprinted in them in some way... can you imagine the power of this capability if we could figure out how to infuse our newborns with the building blocks of knowledge at birth.
To anyone who would say that they are just a butterfly (or even a mosquito, I guess), I would have to disagree.
or be resistant to pests and disease.
True. The american chesnut is making a comback because of selection and crossbreeding but not genetic modification. They are locating the old ones that survived and breedin back to them for disease resistance. The biggest motivation for modification is plantation profits from faster rotation. Since genetics is an expensive endeavor, the results they chase first is profit to make up the investment.
.
Excellence is its own reward!
selection and crossbreeding is genetic modification, just with a much broader brush. Being able to isolate and modify a specific gene ultimately offers a much quicker and cost effective means of doing this.
I've been pondering the consequences of inserting genes from completely different family or genus into another. Quite honestly, I found it troubling for some time, but then I thought of the yeast example... in common yeast, the gene pool is overlapping with humans, in fact, about 90% of the genes in yeast are also found in humans. Taken to a very specific example, humans have a gene that is responsible for the production of a protein that is essential for muscles to twitch, and this gene is also found in yeast. The question that arises is why does yeast need a gene that leads to a protein that is used for muscle movement when yeast doesn't have any muscles? Clearly, what I am getting at is that the universal gene pool among all families, genus and species isn't that big, at least not as big as we like to think, and all life forms ultimately share genes.
If researchers can enhance tree species, or any other plant life for that matter, by tweaking genes, I'm okay with that. Humans have been tweaking genes in plants for thousands of years through crossbreeding and selection, modern life science technology can just do it with more precision and speed, not too mention safety.
"selection and crossbreeding is genetic modification,"
I don't know specifically the scientic language for it all, but in the contaxt as I was using it, genetic modification means actually modifying the genes through methods such as inserting portions of DNA from other species or families liek Monsanto does withthe BT into corn which is radically different from simple cross-breeding..
Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin,
OOOH, OOOH something I actually know about.
Regardless of the jargon both you and JEFFN7 are right. Whenever you take DNA from one species, say Chinese chestnut and put it into something else, say American chestnut that is "genetic modification". How you get the DNA -gene(s)- there really doesn't matter, the DNA/gene is still there.
Example: If it takes 20 years for a tree to mature and produce its first seed, and I am interested in a tougher seed pod, it will take twenty years for each cycle of selecting those seed pods that are tougher (playing God-Darwin style). But if I know the gene that will make a seed pod tougher, I can "put" that gene/DNA into new seedlings and every one will mature and have a tougher seed pod the 1st go around. The only difference is speed that the results are obtained.
Your example of BT into corn, yes, it could be done with old fashion breeding - a lot of breeding, and a lot of selection - and then more breeding moving the BT gene ever closer to a species that will cross with corn. Despite all of the pooing on BT, if a farmer is able to use BT products he will use a lot less pesticides - a lot less. And currently I'm a lot more afraid of pesticides than I am of BT corn. (pesticides don't do the Monarch butterfly much good either). That said, it is only a matter of time before someone sticks a gene from something in somewhere it doesn't belong and once it's there you can't take it out. Just imagine if the gene in Roundup Ready corn/cotton/whatever spead to weeds - oh yeah that happened already! The speed of a genetic engineer is a very powerful very double edged sword.
I'll climb down, the soapbox is now open.
actually, there are no selections of american chestnut demonstrated to be tolerent of chestnut blight - -
chestnut blight resistance is being achieved by crossing american chestnut with chinese chestnut (a related species) - the chinese chestnut is not sensitive to the blight organism - the chinese chestnut also is more of a shrub than a tree - by crossing am X ch, screening progeny for blight tolerance, then crossing tolerant progeny to american and screening for blight etc - etc - there is now availible a generation that 15/16 american with blight tolerance, the thinking is that one more generation might yeild the timber tree with blight tolerance that can be introduced to fill the ecological niche of the american chestnut -
I'm not sure where the genetic sequencing stands in regards to chestnut, but if enough money were spent, I am confident that the nature of the genetic tolerance could be determined - if that were known, then a strategy of genetic manipulation could be undertaken to modify the appropriate genetic sequence(s) so as to have stock tolerant of the blight organism - -
my question (the question!) - what is the nature of the difference between the tree whose tolerance of blight was arrived at by traditional breeding techiques and the tree whose genes were rearranged using the tools of the genetic engineer?
"my question (the question!) - what is the nature of the difference between the tree whose tolerance of blight was arrived at by traditional breeding techiques and the tree whose genes were rearranged using the tools of the genetic engineer?"
IMO, there is none, as long as the genes are all chesnut origin. If you bring in a diff species that will not normally interbreed in nature ti derive genes from, that is where questions about ethics begin to arise..
Excellence is its own reward!
t(o) derive genes from
well, all genes in all life are coded by 4 amino acids, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine, (A-T-C-G) common to all organisms, with the order of pairs determining the functioning of the gene - mutations occur rather frequently that rearrange the order, usually for the worse, occasionaly for the better - - the state of the science is such that genetic strands can be assembled to order - - one of the early efforts at genetic engineering was the 'flavor saver' tomato, with a sequence derived from a flounder (fish) inserted - - definately qualifying it as 'frankenfood' - - now it would be possible to build that sequence from amino acids derived from tomatoes (altho I don't know why that would important, since the A-T-C-G is the same across all life) and insert it to the same effect - does that make a difference? - -
I don't know - - really, the biological concerns worry me less than the political ones - ownership of sequences by business, etc - - anytime money is involved, there is corruption, and there is potential for major $ to be involved here - treatments for diseases, human replacement parts - lots going on, but human nature hasn't changed - -
i think part of the answer to the question:
what is the nature of the difference between the tree whose tolerance of blight was arrived at by traditional breeding techiques and the tree whose genes were rearranged using the tools of the genetic engineer?
is in coolcall's response:
The speed of a genetic engineer is a very powerful very double edged sword.
we can think we know all the ramifications of our actions in the lab, but do we? or do we know the ramifications of our actions ONLY in the lab? what about that once-upon-a-time story about, was it DDT? the mosquitos got to be a problem, so they spray them with DDT, some mosquitos develop resistance, the birds eat those mosquitos, the bird's egg shells can't handle the DDT and develop too thinly, the hatchlings never make it, the bird population crashes, and then you've got swarms of DDT resistant mosquitos with no natural predators. woops! didn't see that one coming! i remember those trucks coming by when i was a kid- run inside!
-m
"we are as gods, so we might as well be good about it" or something to that effect - I could pick a couple of nits with your arguement, but I accept it as valid example regarding the concern about genetic engineering - but the genie is not going back in the bottle, we opened pandora's box when we moved beyond hunting and gathering - - my generation (I'm the tail end of the baby boom) is demanding treatments for what ails us (I'm so GD sick of metamucil advertizing - can you imagine what it's going to be like in 20 years?) genetic engineering and stem cells and cloning and the like are going to provide some relief for the infirmnaties of the entitled old people - you'll use them too, when they offer relief or a cure - this will happen even if we don't use these techniques in ag - I have few answers, but think that we are at a point where we had better hang on and ride this tiger - going back is not only not possible, but not desirable either -
Your DDT example is the exact reason why genetic engineering is SAFER than traditional means of crossbreeding, and pesticides/herbicides/fungicides. All of the above take a broad approach to solving a problem, in effect, altering an entire sequence of genes (crossbreeding) or using a chemical agent to completely or selectively wipe out a pest.
Take mosquitos, modify a species of mosquito to hatch eggs whose juveniles are sterile. Release these mosquitos into the system, allow them to breed and produce offspring that are incapable of reproducing. You will, in two generations, reduce the population of mosquitos without the use of chemical agents and no effect on organisms in the ecosystem beyond the mosquito. In fact, even species who feed on mosquitos would not be harmed, except by the eventual reduction of a food source.
In agriculture, you don't know what will specifically happen with the gene chain once you crossbreed species or genus. By selectively modifying specific genes who's function is understood, even if only partially, you will have a much more controlled result, at least one where you can specifically monitor for exceptions.
I don't have a problem with splicing in genes from different genus and families. Using a genetically modified goat or cow to produce milk that includes a protein or other therapeutic compound is fine by me. Genetically modifying crops to be drought or pest resistant is not only attractive, but humane when it comes to regions such as Africa.
Did you hear about the forester in Austria.
He claims if you cut the tree during the correct moon cycle, you avoid all kinds of problems like warping and splitting. Also the cut lumber can be installed without drying within a year.
The correct moon cycle is during the new moon in December.
Why the heck CAN'T we build a better tree? We can improve just about everything else.
I figure back in the 50s (or so) when they first wanted to create hybrid trees, they were most concerned about breeding trees that would grow faster. Since we've been harvesting those trees for a while, and basically no one is happy about the quality, that they're working on this now.
I figure Weyerhauser or GP already has some trees out there that are designed to grow faster AND grow straighter. They're probably trying to keep it to themselves and plant it on their own ground, though.
I hope to see some of the new trees in my lifetime yet.
In calm water every ship has a good captain. -- Swedish Proverb
In eastern Canada, there is a huge family owned firm that among other things, is huge in woodlands. (yes, newf, i mean the Irvings). They have a "reward" program. If you are out in the woods, and you spy what seems to be a truly great specimen of a species (straight, big, even, all that), they ask you to mark it, and report it to them; they will check it out, and if it really is a prime specimen, they will use it for breeding stock. And they will reward you somehow (probably a free roll of toilet paper). At least they seem to value the quality of the tree as well as the speed at which it grows.
I worked with a forester at Weyerhaeuser who once postulated (tongue-in-cheek) that the perfect tree would grow with a square trunk and, at a harvestable age and size, would develop a root disease that would result in the tree "harvesting" itself by falling over. With a given unit all planted at the same time, this harvest would occur with hundreds or thousands of trees falling over almost simultaneously. Man would only have to go out and pick up the trunks and haul them to the mill.
Interesting idea. Particularly the square trunk.
Not sure about the "Falling over" idea though. Wouldn't want to be walking around in those woods. And you sure couldn't plant them near power lines or along roadways..................Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand.