Using Gene Silencing Technology..

2010-04-21T12:16:40+01:00

Hi All,

I just have a small doudt or may be its confusion,
now a days gene silencing technology is widely using in the production of hybrids to get more yield this is defnetly effect the diversity of the perticular species in future
this may mainly seen in the developing and non developing countries where most of the formers dont no about all this things.

Please add your views on this…..

Farm Scale Evaluation of Transgenic Cotton positive

2006-06-27T11:20:56+01:00

Friends,

This is good news for the transgenic cotton debate: Three farm-scale evaluations in a row demonstrate all clear positive results in favour of the transgenic Bt cotton Here are the abstracts and links of the most recent publications:

Cattaneo, M.G., Yafuso, C., Schmidt, C., Huang, C.Y., Rahman, M., Olson, C., Ellers-Kirk, C., Orr, B.J., Marsh, S.E., Antilla, L., Dutilleu, P., & Carriere, Y. (2006)
Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 20, pp 7571-7576
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/20/7571 and the supporting tables http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0508312103/DC1 and figures only http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/figsonly/103/20/7571

Summary
Higher yields and reduced pesticide impacts are needed to mitigate the effects of agricultural intensification. A 2-year farm-scale evaluation of 81 commercial fields in Arizona show that use of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton reduced insecticide use, whereas transgenic cotton with Bt protein and herbicide
resistance (BtHr) did not affect herbicide use.
Transgenic cotton had higher yield than nontransgenic cotton for any given number of insecticide applications. However, nontransgenic, Bt and BtHr cotton had similar yields overall, largely because higher insecticide use with nontransgenic cotton improved control of key pests.
Unlike Bt and BtHr cotton, insecticides reduced the diversity of non-target insects. Several other agronomic and ecological factors also affected biodiversity. Nevertheless, pairwise comparisons of diversity of non-target insects in cotton fields with diversity in adjacent non-cultivated sites revealed similar effects of cultivation of transgenic and nontransgenic cotton on biodiversity.
The results indicate that impacts of agricultural intensification can be reduced when replacement of broad-spectrum insecticides by narrow-spectrum Bt crops does not reduce control of pests not affected by Bt crops.

Two other recent papers, telling the same story, again underpinned with excellent scientific data collected under realistic conditions:

Sharma, H.C. & Pampapathy, G. (2006)
Influence of transgenic cotton on the relative abundance and damage by target and non-target insect pests under different protection regimes in India. Crop Protection, 25, 8, pp 800-813
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Sharma-Cotton-Insects-2006.pdf

Summary
Effectiveness of transgenic cottons with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cry1Ac gene along with non-transgenic commercial cultivars of Gossypium hirsutum and G. arboreum for the management of cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera was evaluated at the research farm, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. In general, there were no significant differences in oviposition between the transgenic and the non-transgenic cultivars under protected and unprotected conditions. The larval numbers were significantly lower on the transgenic hybrids during the 2004 rainy season under high infestation, but the differences in larval density between the transgenic and non-transgenic hybrids during 2002 and 2003 seasons under low levels of infestation were quite small. Bollworm damage in squares and bolls was significantly lower in the transgenic hybrids than in the nontransgenic ones, although there were a few exceptions. Differences in seed cotton yield between the transgenic and the non-transgenic hybrids were not significant under unprotected conditions at moderate levels of infestation during the 2002 and 2003 cropping seasons (except in the case of Mech 184). However, significant differences in seed cotton yield were observed during the 2004 cropping season under heavy bollworm infestation. Seed cotton yield of the first picking in transgenic hybrids was significantly greater than that of the non-transgenic counterparts.

Bambawale, O.M., Singh, A., Sharma, O.P., Bhosle, B.B., Lavekar, R.C., Dhandapani, A., Kanwar, V., Tanwar, R.K., Rathod, K.S., Patange, N.R., & Pawar, V.M. (2004)
Performance of Bt cotton (MECH-162) under Integrated Pest Management in farmers’ participatory field trial in Nanded district, Central India. Current Science, 86, 12, pp 1628-1633
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Bambawale-Cotton-Centra-India-2004.pdf

Summary
Farmers’ participatory field trail was conducted in 33.18 ha representing rainfed cotton-growing region in Nanded district of the central zone, to evaluate the performance of Bt cotton hybrid MECH-162 under Integrated Pest Management (IPM), and to compare it with conventional cotton (CC) hybrids/varieties grown with and without IPM. There was significant reduction in bollworm incidence. Maximum damage was observed in CC without IPM, where seven sprays of pesticides were made for control of insect pests in comparison to three on Bt MECH-162. Population of the sucking pests and two natural enemies monitored was also lower in Bt MECH-162 compared to CC. The latter without IPM recorded the lowest population of natural enemies. Seed cotton yield (12.4 q/ha), and net returns (Rs 16231/ha) were highest for Bt MECH-162. CC under IPM recorded an yield of 7.1 q/ha, and return of Rs 10507/ha. The results show that IPM in cotton was most effective with Bt MECH-162, and provided higher return though the initial seed cost for the farmers was higher.
. .

some helpful links for those who want to know more:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton-Links-KA-20060719.pdf
including the (in)famous Report on Chinese cotton from Greenpeace, which has been contradicted and rebutted by the cited Chinese authors themselves:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/China-Greenpeace-XUEdayuan.pdf

and two (of many) rebuttals pointing to the main flaws of the Greenpeace report:
The protest of the Chinese researchers cited in the Greenpeace report, which has been published behind their back:

Prof. Wu is Director of the Department of Agricultural Entomology, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Beijing, China; a member of the National GMO Biosafety Committee; and Chief Scientist of the National High-Tech Program on the ecological safety of Bt cotton in China. His laboratory is one of four mentioned by the Greenpeace-Report. The following is Prof. Kongming Wu’s brief statement.
Wu, K. (2002),
Electronic Source: A brief statement on the studies of the ecological impact of Bt cotton conducted by Dr. Kongming Wu’s lab, Institute of Plant Protection, (ed ASK-FORCE), Forum ASK-FORCE, published by: European Federation of Biotechnology, Taken from the Berne Debates 2002, sent by the author
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/WuKongmingRsptoGreenp.pdf/
Lots of scientific, peer reviewed papers cited in there

A report by an independent consultant, as publication and electronic source
Keeley, J. (2003),
Electronic Source: Regulating biotechnology in China: the politics of biosafety, IDS Working Paper 208, published by: INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES,
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp208.pdf AND http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Keeley-Report-China-Cotton-2003.pdf

Keeley, J. (2006)
Balancing technological innovation and environmental regulation: An analysis of Chinese agricultural biotechnology governance. Environmental Politics, 15, 2, pp 293-309
<Go to ISI>://000237241900008 no pdf available

The basics: Greenpeace has done a sloppy job by relying on a field study which it did not study properly and from which it draw wrong conclusions without even checking with the authors, the wrong negative conclusions then blown up out of proportion, so the whole report is not really credible.

QUESTION TO GREENPEACE (AND A REQUEST)

Why on earth are you not taking notice of all the critical debate concerning your 2002 Report? Are you living on another planet or what? It’s just really cheap to launch a flawed report and present it on your luxurious website for ignorant lay people as THE truth? Please explain
For those who have to verify these accusations, please go to:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/footer/search?q=cotton, still the same old stuff, as if time would have been halted.

THE REQUEST
please put on your website the three publications (Cattaneo, Sharma, Bambawale) with the links above in order to give your members a more balanced view, if you do not, then you can be rightly accused by falsifying the scientific facts on purpose. You have lost a lot of credibility to the people who have access to scientific information. Unfortunately you can still count on all those goodhearted members who have too much faith in you and who have no ways and means to check critically, what dusty stuff you put on your website.

Summing up this China Bt cotton debate with Greenpeace (which is actually OVER from the scientific point of view) in short words:
THERE ARE INSECT RESISTANT CROPS PERFORMING WELL AND FACT-RESISTANT ACTIVISTS WHO NEED TO SAY BYE BYE TO THEIR CHEAP PROPAGANDA STUNTS

Bibliography from the Web of Science on Bt Cotton for the keywords biosafety and biodiversity
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Cotton/Bibliography-Bt-Cotton-WOS-20060719.pdf

Comprehensive overview on China’s biosafety policy:
http://agbioforum.org/v5n4/v5n4a01-huang.htm

Finally: compare also the previous sending of the ASK-FORCE on a similar topic: Bt cotton in India
http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/13/

Klaus Ammann

EFB Forum

Using Gene Silencing Technology..

Farm Scale Evaluation of Transgenic Cotton positive