A Crop Biotechnology newsletter

[Guest guest]

Agnet Nov. 4/05Will investors wait for Monsanto's magic seeds?: Drought-tolerant cropsAnother rootworm trait arrivesCP Group calls for GM field testsIndia maps DNA of basmati rice to protect it from WestCzech farmers growing GE cornGround beetles used to gauge Bt effectsAn organic driftCorn ethanol: giving teeth to national bioethanol programSoftware for peanutsThe color orange: key to more nutritious maize?“Hot spots” in maize for dry regions in the developing worldInsect pheromone research wins prizeNew method can evaluate gene flowCAST comments on safety of biotech foodsNew barley check-off agreements aim to broaden opportunitieshow to Will investors wait for Monsanto's magic seeds?: Drought-tolerant cropsNovember 4, 2005National Post / Dow JonesGreg EdwardsBig advances in agricultural biotechnology are nothing new at Monsanto Co., which has developed more than a dozen products that protect crops against insects and weeds.But even the company's top executives sound almost giddy about a new technology that is still four or five years from commercial production: drought-tolerant crops.Dr. Robb Fraley, Monsanto's chief technology officer, was quoted as saying, "There is hardly anything I have seen that is as exciting as drought tolerance. It's "as important and as significant as any new product we've ever developed."Chief executive Hugh Grant notes that "the drought products, I think, have the potential to become blockbusters. … Of all the fresh water that's used around the world today, 70% of it goes into farming, and "the value of water is only going to escalate."Tom Burrus, president of Burrus Seed Co. in Arenzville, Ill., which has licensed seed from Monsanto since 1996, was quoted as saying, "It's a big deal" and would be "a huge competitive advantage."Monsanto, based in St. Louis, Mo., expects its drought-tolerant technology will be in commercial production as early as 2010, which "quite honestly, is just around the corner," Mr. Grant said during a conference call with investors and analysts last month.Frank Mitsch, an analyst at Fulcrum Global Partners, was quoted as saying, "That's an eternity on Wall Street. I guarantee you investors are not as focused on 2010, and are just trying to see what the fourth quarter is going to bring."Still, Mr. Mitsch says, drought tolerance "will be a very meaningful addition to the portfolio" for Monsanto and for its competitors, such as DuPont Co. and its Pioneer division, which also is developing drought-tolerant technology.topAnother rootworm trait arrivesNovember 4, 2005AgWeb.comAndrew BurchettIf past discussion of transgenic corn rootworm control is any indication, farmers will be looking at a lot of pictures of corn roots for some time. That’s because there’s a new player in the rootworm-resistant corn trait market—and more to come.The Herculex RW trait, developed jointly by Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., is now approved for sale in the U.S. and will compete with Monsanto’s YieldGard Rootworm trait. Syngenta plans to field a third option for 2007 planting.In October, the Herculex RW brand rootworm-resistant corn trait labeled for control of northern corn rootworm, western corn rootworm and Mexican corn rootworm received full approval from U.S. regulatory agencies. Japan import approval is expected this winter. Marketing of the new technology is in full swing.Farmers in many parts of the country have adopted Monsanto’s YieldGard Rootworm trait. It was planted on approximately 5 million acres in 2005. In areas that are affected by mid-season drought, hybrids protected with YieldGard rootworm showed remarkable resilience with better plant height, color and ear size than hybrids that are protected with insecticides.Syngenta expects approval for its trait—known for now as MIR 604—within a year. When approved, the trait will be marketed as Agrisure RW, giving farmers a choice of three traits for corn rootworm resistance as they begin to order seed in fall 2006. The following fall, Syngenta plans to offer multiple stacks with Agrisure RW, including the triple stack of Agrisure GT/CB/RW.For now, there are two choices, but Herculex RW is only available in Pioneer Hi-Bred, Mycogen and Beck’s Hybrids seed. That’s because the agreement between Pioneer Hi-Bred and Dow AgroSciences only allows one outside company to license the technology. After two years, Dow AgroSciences can license the trait to other seed companies. Monsanto’s YieldGard Rootworm trait is available from virtually all seed companies.“We have four Herculex RW hybrids for sale in the 102- to 114-day maturity range,” says Terry Gardner, Mycogen marketing specialist. He says the company plans to make sure as many customers as possible get a chance to try the new trait in 2006.Beck’s is offering two Herculex RW hybrids—a 109-day and 110-day hybrid—adapted to the company’s marketing region. Pioneer Hi-Bred will offer the trait in 10 to 15 hybrids in the 94- to 113-day range.Pioneer Hi-Bred is the only company to offer Herculex RW stacked with Roundup Ready Corn 2 for 2006. Herculex RW already includes herbicide-tolerant LibertyLink technology.Before long, farmers will hear about hybrids stacked with the Herculex RW and Herculex I traits to make Herculex XTRA. The stack needs a separate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. Gardner says Herculex XTRA approval for the U.S. is expected by the end of 2005, with Japan import approval for 2006 planting.“Herculex XTRA will offer the broadest above- and below-ground insect protection on the market,” says Paula Davis, Pioneer Hi-Bred’s senior marketing manager for insect and disease control traits. That’s because Herculex I is labeled for a few more insects than other Bt traits that target European corn borer. These include black cutworm, fall armyworm and western bean cutworm. Additionally, Pioneer Hi-Bred will offer Herculex XTRA with Roundup Ready Corn 2.As soon as Syngenta receives approval for its rootworm trait, the company plans to license it to several seed companies in addition to offering it through its own brands—Garst, NK and Golden Harvest.So which trait works best? No one knows. That’s because product-licensing agreements strictly forbid companies developing a new trait from comparing it in any scientific way with a trait already on the market. For that reason, there are no yield data from studies comparing corn rootworm traits—just pictures of roots from different plots, root ratings and yield comparisons between a hybrid with a trait and the same hybrid without the trait. Farmers and universities can plant competing products side by side and draw some conclusions, but there will be no isoline hybrids available with both traits. Plot data for Herculex RW and YieldGard RW show both of the traits perform as well—or better—than granular insecticides.Syngenta’s trait seems to have benefits similar to the two traits on the market. In five plots under heavy rootworm pressure, there was an average yield advantage of 35 bu. per acre for hybrids with the MIR 604 trait compared with the same hybrids with no insect or trait protection, reports NK brand regional sales agronomist Craig Allaman.How much?An important question for farmers is: How much will the new Herculex RW trait cost. That depends on the combined value of the hybrid and the technology in the area it is sold, says Pioneer Hi-Bred spokesman Jerry Harrington.Beck’s Hybrids had not set prices at press time. Gardner says Mycogen will price Herculex RW hybrids to be competitive with YieldGard Rootworm. Another important question farmers should ask prior to planting any new Bt corn trait is what insect resistance management (IRM) rules they are required to follow.For YieldGard Rootworm, farmers must plant at least 20% of their acres with hybrids that don’t contain a rootworm trait. These refuge acres must be in an adjacent field or in the same field. Split-planter refuge strips must be at least six rows wide. The refuge must have the same rotation history as YieldGard Rootworm corn. Insecticide treatments are permitted for controlling rootworms in the refuge.IRM for Herculex RW is similar, with a couple of differences. One is that farmers planting a strip refuge configuration for Herculex RW hybrids only need to make refuge strips four rows wide. Additionally, if refuge areas are planted in a corn-on-corn rotation, Herculex RW corn can be planted on rotated ground.Trait stacks with both corn borer and rootworm resistance traits combine the most restrictive requirements for the two traits.Another stewardship issue is where farmers can sell corn with rootworm traits. For now, both YieldGard Rootworm and Herculex RW may need to be channeled away from some buyers. However, the YieldGard Rootworm trait and some of the stacks that contain it are approved for import, processing and use in animal feed in the European Union. Herculex is not. All YieldGard Rootworm products have Japan import approval. In the case that Japan does not grant Herculex RW import approval before spring planting, Mycogen and Beck’s will not deliver Herculex RW seed. Pioneer Hi-Bred will require farmers to agree to a strict stewardship program.topCP Group calls for GM field testsNovember 4, 2005The Nation (Thailand)Thailand's biggest agricultural corporation, Charoen Pokphand (CP) Group, was cited as calling on the government yesterday to permit controversial field experiments of three genetically modified (GM) crops: cassava, rubber and animal-feed corn.The local chapter of the international environment group Greenpeace immediately voiced opposition to the proposal, citing the case of GM-contaminated papayas as a warning.topIndia maps DNA of basmati rice to protect it from WestNovember 4, 2005NZ HeraldJustin HugglerIndian scientists are, according to this story, mapping the DNA of one of the country's basic food products: basmati rice.Concerned that Western corporations may try to take out patents on the food, their aim is not to produce genetically modified rice but to protect one of India's most treasured natural products from aforeign takeover.Basmati may be beloved of students because it is easy to cook, but to connoisseurs, its long grains and natural scent make it one of the world's most desired varieties of rice.It is one of the Indian agriculture sector's prime exports.The story says that the project to prove that basmati rice is quintessentially Indian is a sign of how GM methods are transforming the agricultural industry. Today, traditional farmers are trying to fight off what is being called "gene piracy".The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (Icar) is hoping to genetically "fingerprint" 72 different varieties of basmati rice that are grown in different regions of India.KS Money, chairman of India's Agriculture and Allied Products Export Authority, was quoted as telling the Indian Express, "It's always better to have records of our biodiversity and germplasm so that if someone uses our variety and claims intellectual property rights, we should be able to contest it."topCzech farmers growing GE cornNovember 4, 2005Prague PostJeffrey WhiteFarmers in the Czech Republic have, according to this story, begun growing genetically engineered (GE) corn for the first time, and they could start selling it as early as next year.The corn, which is more resistant to disease-bearing pests, is expected to be used in the country's animal feed industry. It is not on store shelves now, and even environmentalists who oppose GE crops acknowledge it's not likely to show up on shelves any time soon.Spain, France, Germany and Portugal have also begun commercial growing of GE corn this year. The European Union has long imported GE products from places like the United States, but only this year did it amend laws on the Continent's agriculture industry to enable countries to decide whether to allow the growing of GE crops.The EU currently allows only GE corn to be grown, but it could green-light modified potatoes and rapeseed down the line.topGround beetles used to gauge Bt effectsNovember 4, 2005CropBiotechGround beetles are well spread through most agricultural fields. They are generalist predators, and, as such, can be used to show any unintended impacts of pesticide use. With the release of Bt corn possessing Coleopteran-specific toxins, scientists may be able to use the insects in showing if the crop has effects on non-target arthropods.Miriam D. Lopez and colleagues explore the "Utility of Ground Beetle Species in Field Tests of Potential Non-Target Effects of Bt Crops." They aim, among others, to determine which ground beetle species are consistently present in a corn field, specifically in Iowa corn; and test such species for differences in abundance which might be caused by transgenic corn or traditional pest management practices.Researchers trapped the beetles and tallied their numbers in fields of Bt corn and conventional corn fields treated with insecticides. They found that Harpalus pensylvanicus DeGeer is the most abundant. The same species was not affected by Bt corn use, but increased in numbers in insecticide treated plots.Read more at:http://titania.esa.catchword.org/vl=9780304/cl=28/nw=1/rpsv/cw/esa/0046225x/v34n5/s35/p1317topAn organic driftNovember 4, 2005New York TimesOrganic food has, according to this editorial, become a very big business, with a 20 percent annual growth rate in sales in recent years. But popularity has come at a price. Ever since 2002, when the Department of Agriculture began its program of national organic certification, there has been a steady lobbying effort to weaken standards in a way that makes it easier for the giant food companies, which often use synthetic substances in processing, to enter the organic market. That's exactly why many organic farmers greeted the U.S.D.A.'s organic seal with real trepidation. They know that the one thing the department has always done especially well is to capitulate to the lobbying pressure of big food and big agriculture.The editorial says that last week, an amendment was slipped into the agricultural spending bill without meaningful debate in a closed-door Republican meeting. It would do two things. It would overturn a court decision reinstating the old legal standard that prohibits synthetic substances in organic foods. And it would allow the agriculture secretary to approve synthetic substances if no organic substitute was commercially available. In part, this is a battle over a label. The big producers, which often use synthetic materials in processing, want to call their processed foods organic because that designation commands premium prices. They do not want to say their products are made with organic ingredients - a lesser designation that allows more synthetics. This is also a cultural battle, a struggle between the people who have long kept the organic faith - despite the historic neglect of the U.S.D.A. - and industry giants that see a rapidly expanding and highly profitable niche that can be pried open even further with lobbying."Organic" is not merely a label, a variable seal of approval at the end of the processing chain. It means a way of raising crops and livestock that is better for the soil, the animals, the farmers and the consumers themselves - a radical change, in other words, from conventional agriculture. Unless consumers can be certain that those standards are strictly upheld, "organic" will become meaningless.topCorn ethanol: giving teeth to national bioethanol programNovember 3, 2005BusinessWorldThe dependence on imported oil is, according to this story, highlighted by the total importation rate of 96% to cope up with the demand.With the rapid depletion of supply and unstable petroleum product prices, the Philippine government has started to lay the foundation for alternative sources of energy that are homegrown.This is through the biofuels program, which is being spear-headed by the Department of Energy. A key component of the program is bioethanol, a blending of ethanol and gasoline to produce an alternative fuel called gasohol.To fast-track the implementation of the scheme, President Gloria Arroyo launched the National Bioethanol Program in May.For its legal framework, the proposed Bioethanol Act—currently pending in the House of Representatives (House Bill no. 4629) and in the Senate—has been certified by the President as urgent.Upon its enactment, it will mandate the blending of gasoline with bioethanol as motor fuel. Within two years from its effectivity, a minimum of 5% bioethanol by volume shall be blended into all gasoline to be distributed, sold and used as motor fuel. After which, the blending will go up to 10% in the succeeding years.To date, however, there are already a few service stations selling gasoline mixed with ethanol at 10%.According to the Philippine Fuel Ethanol Alliance, "with the phasing in of gasoline displacement under the National Bioethanol Program starting from the use of 5% blend of ethanol in gasoline from year 2007 to 2010 and 10% blend from 2010 to 2017, a total of 3.7 billion liters of gasoline will be displaced by an equal volume of ethanol over a 10-year period. From this, a total savings in foreign exchange of $825 million over 10 years or $82 million per year will be achieved."The Ethanol Alliance is ! an organization established in August 2004 to coordinate efforts of the stakeholder industries by way of information sharing and regular dialogues on ethanol.The country needs 25 ethanol-producing plants to meet projected demand. Each plant will require P1.5 billion in investments. To entice investors, the government, through the Development Bank of the Philippines, is offering at least a P50-billion financing portfolio for renewable and indigenous-based energy projects.The bioethanol bill also proposes fiscal and non-fiscal incentives. Fiscal incentives include a duty of 1% of all inputs, machinery, and equipment for ethanol production and a tax at a rate not more than prevailing rate for unleaded gasoline. Investors will enjoy these for 10 years from the effectivity of the new law.topSoftware for peanutsNovember 4, 2005ARS News ServiceAgricultural Research Service, USDAManaging irrigation and controlling pests while growing peanuts can be more effective using a computer program called Irrigator Pro. Developed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists, Irrigator Pro is part of a collection of software called FarmSuite, which continues to provide accurate information to farmers as it's updated with new data.Irrigator Pro versions for cotton and corn have also been developed and are currently being validated in research trials to provide growers recommendations on scheduling irrigation for those crops.Researchers at the ARS National Peanut Research Laboratory in Dawson, Ga., are conducting long-term, multicrop research at a farm location to define the best irrigation management practices for growers of peanuts, corn and cotton. The study has completed the fourth year of a 15-year study to determine the impact of irrigation, crop rotation and price on profitability. Data from this study is imported into the software each growing season.Retired mechanical engineer James Davidson collaborated with peanut farmers and the Peanut Foundation to create Irrigator Pro in the late 1980s.Irrigator Pro's goal is to improve economic returns for irrigated peanut production and reduce risk associated with foreign material, immaturity, off-flavor, chemical residues, negative environmental impact and aflatoxin. More than 20 years of scientific research data and information are incorporated in the software to help peanut farmers make informed, appropriate irrigation decisions.This software became the progenitor of a collection of software systems that would help farmers do their jobs, according to ARS research leader Marshall Lamb in Dawson.Read more about the research in the November 2005 issue of Agricultural Research magazine, available online at:http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov05/water1105.htmARS is U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.topThe color orange: key to more nutritious maize?November 4, 2005CIMMYT NewsKevin PixleyThe HarvestPlus Maize group examines progress toward breeding maize with enhanced, pro-vitamins A, iron, and zinc.CIMMYT maize scientists and colleagues from national programs in the key countries targeted by HarvestPlus reported significant progress in identifying maize with elevated concentrations of iron, zinc, and pro-vitamins A (chemicals the human body can convert to vitamin A) in their elite maize varieties and germplasm collections. The results of two years of work were presented at the second HarvestPlus Maize meeting hosted by EMBRAPA, the national agricultural research program of Brazil at their maize and sorghum research station in Sete Lagoas.Maize is a key target crop for nutritional enhancement because it is so widely consumed in areas where high malnutrition—especially vitamin-A deficiency—exists. Scientists working in the HarvestPlus program hope eventually to breed high-quality, high-yielding maize with enhanced pro-vitamins A, iron, and zinc content. These micronutrients in maize will have to be in a form that survives processing and can be utilized by the human body.The first planning meeting for the maize scientists was held in 2003 in Ethiopia. “We’ve come a long way since we first met two years ago,” says Kevin Pixley, the HarvestPlus Maize coordinator and Director of CIMMYT’s Tropical Ecosystems Program. “But we have also realized that this is a very complex subject with many assumptions that have to be validated.”CIMMYT maize breeder Dave Beck (left) examines EMBRAPA maize during a field visit.CIMMYT maize breeder Dave Beck showed the group results of screening of CIMMYT elite highland and transition zone maize germplasm for enhanced levels of pro-vitamins A, zinc, and iron. HarvestPlus nutritionists have set minimum targets for the concentrations of these micronutrients in maize. The good news is that for zinc, CIMMYT has identified material that was already above the threshold. For iron the picture is less promising as existing lines identified have only 60 percent of the required minimum level for iron. For pro-vitamins A CIMMYT has examined hundreds of lines. The best CIMMYT lines have about 75 percent of the minimum requirement, but sources identified by project partners in the USA have the minimum required level of pro-vitamins A. The CIMMYT team is now breeding to enhance pro-vitamins A concentration for highland, transition zone, mid-altitude, and lowland-adapted materials.A topic of keen interest at the meeting was how to convince people to adopt any nutritionally enhanced maize varieties that might be developed. In much of eastern and southern Africa, white maize is preferred over yellow maize. Scientists in Zambia and Zimbabwe had conducted studies about the acceptability of yellow maize. Both studies found that yellow maize is associated with food aid and that was one reason people did not want to eat it. Scientists know there is a strong correlation between the color of the maize and the total level of carotenoids. Some of these carotenoids are precursors for vitamin A “pro-vitamins A.” Torbert Rocheford, a professor of plant genetics at the University of Illinois, suggested that the debate should not actually be about yellow maize in many parts of Africa. He said what we should be talking about is orange maize—something new that will not carry the stigma of yellow maize but will have high pro-vitamins A content.top“Hot spots” in maize for dry regions in the developing worldNovember 4, 2005CIMMYT NewsJean-Marcel Ribaut and Mark SawkinsA new genomic map that applies to a wide range of maize breeding populations should help scientists develop more drought tolerant maize.Throughout the developing world, drought is second only to soil infertility as a constraint to maize production, and probably reduces yields worldwide by more than 15 percent (more than 20 million tons) annually. Lines have now been drawn on a new battleground: a map of the chromosomes that shows important areas that help maize resist drought.Of the world’s three most important cereal crops (rice, wheat, and maize), maize has the most complex genetic structure. As maize has been bred and adapted to many different growing environments, selection has produced a crop that contains significant differences in levels of genetic diversity. But many genes and genetic sequences should be the same or similar. Scientists are hopeful that genetic traits for drought tolerance can be found in such shared genomic sections, across a wide range of tropical maize types. A new consensus map of genes across maize populations may be the key to identifying universal genetic “hot spots,” those genomic regions that confer drought tolerance in diverse settings to varying degrees.The two “hot spot” regions shown on this map represent the complete QTL results for nine traits on a section of chromosome 2 for one experiment.“Are there any regions in the maize genome that come out as ‘hot spots’?” Jean-Marcel Ribaut and his team have asked. Known to scientists as quantitative trait loci (QTL), these regions tell scientists approximately where the genes determining a particular plant trait are located. The QTL is not a gene itself but a genomic region in which genes of interest are probably located. Prior genomic maps of QTLs for drought tolerance in tropical maize applied only to specific maize lines or populations. The CIMMYT team and partners have developed a single map that combines available drought QTL data from many trials of different tropical maize types in diverse environments. “Having all the QTL information integrated into a single map should allow us to identify the outstanding genomic regions involved in drought tolerance,” Ribaut says.Scientists have measured drought related traits such as ear number, chlorophyll, and carbohydrate content of maize plants in the field, and have extracted and analyzed DNA from the same plants in order to plot the traits on the genomic maps. Ribaut, now Director of the Generation Challenge Programme, and CIMMYT molecular geneticist Mark Sawkins hope to link the traits they measured in the field with regions in the maize DNA.“The idea is ambitious,” says Ribaut, “for it should allow maize breeders to select the right parents for drought tolerant maize by ensuring they have these important regions on their genome.”With funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, members of the project team will give courses on this approach in to NARS scientists in Kenya and China over the coming months.topInsect pheromone research wins prizeNovember 4, 2005American Association for the Advancement of ScienceWashington, D.C. – Dr. Pingxi Xu has been awarded the 2005 international Prize in Neurobiology by the journal Science and Eppendorf. He is being recognized for his new insights on how insects "smell" using pheromone signaling. This research could lead the way to new approaches to control pests that spread human diseases and cause agriculture losses.The Eppendorf and Science Prize in Neurobiology recognizes outstanding neurobiological research by a young scientist, as described in a 1,000 word essay based on research performed within the last three years. The grand prize winner receives $25,000 from Eppendorf, and the winner's essay will be published in the 04 November 2005 issue of Science.Three finalist essays will be published at Science Online (http://www.scienceonline.org). The winner as well as the finalists will be recognized at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in November in Washington, DC.Pingxi Xu left a career as a pediatrician to study basic science. Although his focus has moved from babies to bugs, his goal remains essentially the same: to improve human health by preventing the occurrence and spread of disease.Xu studies how fruit flies use chemical signals called pheromones to influence the behavior of other fruit flies. Devising ways to change insect behavior by manipulating pheromone-signaling systems could provide sustainable ways to control the insect pests that have a profound impact on human health and agriculture. Xu is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas.Xu has discovered that small proteins known as "odorant binding proteins" are required for pheromone signaling in fruit flies. Odorant binding proteins may function as adaptors that link pheromone molecules to neurons, according to Xu. A full understanding of the mechanisms of pheromone perception could help scientists manipulate insect behavior and develop sustainable methods of pest control. The toxicity of today's pesticides and the emergence of pesticide resistance limit their use, Xu writes.Pingxi Xu was born and grew up in the northern province of Jiangsu, China. His first career was as a pediatrician, but after years of pediatric practice, Dr. Xu became interested in exploring basic science. He returned to university in Xian, China, and in 1988 earned a Master's degree in biochemistry and in 1999 a Ph.D. in neurobiology. In 2000 he joined Dr. Dean Smith's lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. Here he has worked to understand the molecular basis of pheromone signaling in Drosophila. Dr. Xu's goal is to apply this knowledge to control mosquito breeding by interrupting their perception of pheromones.The Finalists Are:Justin Blau, for his essay "How Flies Time: Circadian Clocks in Drosophila." Dr. Blau was born and raised in London, England. He received his undergraduate degree from Cambridge University in 1991, and his Ph.D. from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, where he studied basic mechanisms of eukaryotic transcription with David Bentley. After graduating in 1996, he joined Mike Young's lab at The Rockefeller University in New York to study how clock genes drive daily (circadian) rhythms of behavior in Drosophila. Dr. Blau started his own lab at New York University in 2000, where he continues to investigate how genes and neurons interact to drive this fundamental behavior.Paul Frankland, for his essay "Networking to Remember: The Cortex and Remote Memory." Dr. Frankland grew up in Folkestone, England. He studied psychology at the University of Sheffield and completed his Ph.D. work in neuroscience in the lab of Dr. John Yeomans at the University of Toronto. After graduating in 1996, he went on to conduct his postdoctoral work in the lab of Dr. Alcino Silva, first at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York and then at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). At UCLA he used genetically engineered mice to model normal cognitive function, as well as cognitive dysfunction associated with various inherited diseases. In 2003, he started his own lab at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. A focus in his lab is on understanding how enduring, or remote, memories are organized in the brain.Johanna Montgomery, for her essay "Synapses in a State: A Molecular Mechanism to Encode Synaptic History and Future Synapse Function." Dr. Montgomery was born and raised in New Zealand. She graduated from The University of Otago in 1999 with a Ph.D. in Physiology. During her Ph.D. studies, Dr. Montgomery completed the Neurobiology Course at The Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. She began postdoctoral work in the laboratory of Dr. Daniel Madison at Stanford University, where she used paired whole-cell recording techniques to reveal distinct mechanisms of synapse plasticity. She then pursued further postdoctoral training with Dr. Craig Garner at Stanford University to examine the molecular aspects of synapse function. Last year, Dr. Montgomery returned to New Zealand to establish the Synaptic Function Research Group at The University of Auckland, where she is focusing on the molecular and physiological mechanisms of synapse function and plasticity.The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world's largest general scientific society, and publisher of the journal, Science (www.sciencemag.org). AAAS was founded in 1848, and serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS (www.aaas.org) is open to all and fulfills its mission to "advance science and serve society" through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more. For the latest research news, log onto EurekAlert!, www.eurekalert.org, the premier science-news Web site, a service of AAAS.Eppendorf AG, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, is a leading global supplier of systems and research tools for the biotechnology industry. With more than 1,700 employees worldwide, Eppendorf AG achieved sales revenues of more than 286 million Euros in 2004, with earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of approx. 40 million Euros.topNew method can evaluate gene flowNovember 4, 2005ISB NewsEwen MullinsGuidelines to ensure the efficient coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops are currently being considered across the European Union.Curtailing pollen/seed-mediated gene flow between GM and non-GM crops is central to effective coexistence. While models have been designed for specific crops,1 traditional commentary associated with a crop's potential for gene flow would typically rank the crop as a high, medium, or low risk. By its qualitative nature, this approach does not provide the detail required to highlight those aspects of a crop's biology that will serve to challenge coexistence management. The substitution of this classification system with a numerical gene flow index would permit a background level of gene flow, specific for a particular crop, to be calculated. In turn, this would underscore those crops that require additional measures when genetically modified, in order to minimize gene flow in accordance with anticipated coexistence guidelines.The concept of a gene flow index or botanical file is not new2 and their potential as tools to assist risk assessment strategies has already been suggested. 3 However, present systems fall short by not encompassing all modes of gene flow that are of relevance to coexistence. Here we present a gene flow index (GFI) 4 model that we have applied to seven conventional crops in Ireland. By combining four strands of gene flow—crop pollen-to-wild relative (CPW); crop pollen-to-crop (CPC); crop seed-to-volunteer (CSV); and crop seed-to-feral (CSF)—we have established a baseline data set that describes the potential of Ireland's primary arable crops for both pollen- and seed-mediated gene flow.ApproachInformation inputted into the model was collated from a broad literature base, and only information that pertained to systems comparable to the Irish agricultural and geographical environment was used. The calculated GFI value pertains to the propensity of each crop to form viable hybrid/volunteer/feral individuals. A clear distinction was made between the volunteer and feral niches by differentiating between the ability of a plant to grow within/outside a managed crop system, respectively. Responsive to regional parameters, we applied the model to sugar beet, oilseed rape, potato, perennial ryegrass, maize, wheat, and barley. Alternative pathways for gene flow (e.g., wild, volunteer, or feral originating pollen to a related crop) were not considered.For all four strands the decisive factor for successful gene flow was deemed to be the establishment of a viable, reproducing hybrid/volunteer/feral individual, without which the introgression/gene spread exposure element of any future GM crop risk assessment could not occur. By restricting the analysis to just the dispersal and preliminary stage of establishing a viable individual/population, it is accepted that the model excludes the issue of hybrid/feral competitive ability. It does, however, provide an initial data set that will quantify the propensity of a conventional crop to spread its genetic material.Retaining a simple format, each of the four strands (CPW, CPC, CSV, CSF) contains several sequential questions, with each question designed to provide a ‘yes/no' answer, which in turn equates to a relevant score.4 By following this linked progression, when a question incurs an answer with a zero value, that strand automatically records a total value of zero, as no gene flow can take place for the specified crop under the selected criterion. The adoption of this worst-case scenario approach was intentional and maintains the practicality of the model by encompassing real-life factors that, while not desired, will occur all the same—for example the occurrence of bolters in a sugar beet crop.OutcomeA composite GFI value for each crop was calculated from which the gene flow potential of both ryegrass and sugar beet was clear (GFI=25/27). The justification for such a value is supported by the fact that both species co-exist in Ireland with inter-fertile wild relatives, both can disperse their pollen over large distances, and the initiation of feral populations from each species is a reality. Importantly, the high GFI value for conventional sugar beet does not necessarily advocate the non-cultivation of GM sugar beet in Ireland. Conversely, it underlines the importance of bolter control in the effective coexistence of GM and non-GM sugar beet. This point is clear when a readjusted model utilizes the sugar beet data for a management system that assumes stringent bolter control. In this scenario, GFI = 6 where the potential for gene-flow is minimized to the establishment of volunteer and feral populations from harvested tuber fragments. The potential for pollen and seed-mediated gene flow in potato (GFI = 11/27) is related to combined tuber and true potato seed (TPS) production. When recalculated for districts where potato production is strictly for tuber production, the GFI = 6/27. Both wheat and barley recorded low indices (GFI = 8/27 for each), in contrast to oilseed rape, which confirmed its ability to disperse its genetic material with a GFI = 19. Cultivation of maize in Ireland is solely for animal forage. Coupled with an absence of wild relatives, the gene flow potential (GFI = 9/27) for maize is limited to pollen-mediated crop-to-crop and seed-mediated crop-to-volunteer.DiscussionEcologically, the consequence of gene flow from a GM crop is wholly dependent upon the physiological impact of the transgene and must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In contrast, the potential for gene flow is primarily reliant upon the reproductive biology of the crop (be it GM or non-GM) and this can be addressed by calculating a crop's GFI value. In this research, several conventional crops (oilseed rape, ryegrass, and sugar beet) attained a high GFI value. Importantly, it must not be implied from this result that these crops are not suitable for GM development. Similarly, for the crops that scored low GFI values, this does not imply gene flow will not occur. Rather a high GFI score implies that a specific crop/variety possesses a higher propensity for gene flow and thus requires greater management precautions if efficient coexistence is to be attained. Conversely, a low GFI value indicates a crop which should not pose a significant challenge to the implementation of a coexistence strategy.Notably, our work has highlighted several coexistence-based questions that require further research and which should be addressed prior to the commercialization of GM crops in Ireland. Specifically, the potential for seed-mediated gene flow requires attention, for, due to a scarcity of research data, we were limited in the number of questions we could ask in regard to the efficacy of seed-mediated gene flow for each crop. This contrasts with pollen-mediated gene flow (strand CPW and CPC) for which a substantial research data set is available. The role of volunteers as potential ‘genetic bridges', facilitating the transfer of genetic material from crop-to-wild/crop-to-crop/wild-to-crop, is also of particular concern, especially as it would be naive to assume that total volunteer control will be achieved in a coexistence-based management system.From a non-scientific perspective, it is hoped that the GFI ranking scheme will increase the public's understanding of ‘gene flow', an issue central to the GM debate. Within the scientific community, it is hoped that the described index will revive discussion on the merits of gene flow indices; specifically in regard to the feasibility of establishing a collective GM crop risk index that encompasses not only a crop's propensity for gene flow but also the elements that contribute to invasiveness, changes in genetic diversity, and broader ecological disturbance.AcknowledgementsThis research is supported by the Irish National Development Fund.References1. Colbach N, Angevin F, Fargue A & Meynard JM. (2003) Using the GeneSys model quantifying the effect of cropping systems on gene flow from GM rape varieties to rape volunteers for designing and evaluating scenarios for co-existence of GM, non-GM and organic crops. Proceedings of GMCC-03, Nov. 13th-14th, Denmark2. de Vries AP, Meijden VD, & Brandenburg WA. (1992) Botanical files - a study of the real chances for spontaneous gene flow from cultivated plants to the wild flora of the Netherlands. Gorteria, Supplement 13. Ammann K, Jacot Y, & Al Mazyad RP. (2001) Safety of genetically engineered plants: an ecological risk assessment of vertical gene flow. In Custers R, ed, Safety of Genetically Engineered Crops. Zwijnaarde, Belgium, Flanders Interuniversity, Institute for Biotechnology, pp 60-874. Flannery M-L, Meade C, & Mullins E. (2005) Employing a composite gene-flow index to numerically quantify a crop's potential for gene flow: an Irish perspective. Environmental Biosafety Research 4, p.29-43Ewen MullinsTeagasc Crops Research CentreOak Park, CarlowIrelandtopCAST comments on safety of biotech foodsNovember 4, 2005CropBiotechAre transgenic foods safe to eat? Are they beneficial or harmful to the environment? Will they encourage further industrialization of agriculture at the expense of biodiversity?These are some of the questions raised in “Crop Biotechnology and the Future of Food: A Scientific Assessment”, released by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). The CAST publication was written in response to public concern about the use of crop biotechnology and its effects on people and the environment.“Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. More than 7 million of these farmers are small-holders in developing countries. The crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries, so a prodigious amount of data and observation is available on which to judge their safety and usefulness,” said Dr. Bruce Chassy, professor of food microbiology, University of Illinois, and Task Food Chair.The commentary which discusses hypothetical hazards vis a vis available scientific evidence and experience with transgenic crops is available online at CAST. CAST is an international consortium of scientific and professional societies.topNew barley check-off agreements aim to broaden opportunitiesNovember 4, 2005Western Grains Research FoundationSaskatoon, Sask.: Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF) plans to help farmers capitalize on expanding opportunities for barley with targets outlined in new funding agreements for the Barley Check-off.Western Canadian farmers have long grown barley for feed or malt. But today the malting barley market is expanding and the feedgrain environment is getting more sophisticated, both of which are diversifying and increasing the demands on barley varieties. In addition, growing recognition of barley's unique and powerful human health benefits are launching food and nutraceuticalopportunities, and the list of new uses for barley components is increasing every year."There are some great new market opportunities for barley," says Dr. Keith Degenhardt, a Hughenden, Alta., producer and Chair of WGRF. "We want to go after these while still looking after today's needs and strengthening our traditional markets. If you look where the dollars are going in the new agreements, I think you'll see our producer board members and advisors have come up with a pretty balanced approach to do that."Barley Check-off investment has been guided by 10-year wheat breedingagreements implemented during the 1993/94 crop year. The agreements outlined how farmers' Check-off investment was to be handled, including the dollarsinvested in breeding for particular barley classes and for particularimprovements. They also included provisions to ensure accountability and more broadly protect the interests of farmers as investors in the research. The new agreements launched during 2005 extend that framework with an updated outlook."The new barley agreements pave the way for a new generation of varieties that perform better in the field and deliver higher quality for an expanded number of market options," says Degenhardt.It can take from eight to 12 years to develop a new variety of barley, with malting barley typically requiring several more years of evaluation than feed barley. Each year of the process needs consistent funding."Because the Barley Check-off is just 10 years old, the main varieties resulting from this investment have only begun to emerge," says Degenhardt. "But several of these are already well accepted by producers and are among the acreage leaders."Under the new agreements, 48 percent of annual Barley Check-off Fund investment goes toward breeding programs for two-row malting barley varieties, 22 percent to two-row feed barley, 10 percent to hulless food barley, nine percent to six-row malting barley, eight percent to hulless feed barley and three percent to forage barley.Arguably the most exciting new area in barley research these days is food barley, observes Degenhardt. Researchers have learned in recent years that barley features unique health-boosting components that make the grain a particularly beneficial dietary component for humans. Most notably, barley contains beta-glucan, exceptionally high in fibre, and tocopherols, which provide health benefits such as a reduction in serum cholesterol."Hulless barley is key to tapping barley's food market potential since the food industry is better-equipped to handle so-called naked grains. Some of the early hulless food barley varieties developed with Check-off support have already been tested or used for products from breakfast cereals and tortillas to nutritional supplements."This November edition of WGRF's Industry Report newsletter, now available at www.westerngrains.com, is a farmers' guide to the new barley breeding agreements. It covers the funding allocations, breeding targets and key provisions.topAgnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph, and is supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, AGCare, the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program), CropLife Canada, National Pork Board, ConAgra Foods, Inc, Monsanto Canada, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Ltd.,Food Safety & Security at Kansas State University, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food , Canadian Animal Health Institute, Council for Biotechnology Information, Syngenta Seeds, Inc USA, Pfizer Animal Health, National Food Processor's Association, Potash and Phosphate Institute, Ag-West Bio Inc., Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Feedlot Health Management Services, Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Inc., Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Molecular Plant Breeding CRC, Tyson, Southern Crop Production Association, Canadian Grain Commission, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., Oregon State University Dept of Forest Science, Global Public Affairs and Agri Business Group, Inc. The Food Safety Network's national toll-free line for obtaining food safety information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638).The Food Safety Network presents a unique opportunity to bring together all those associated with agriculture and food, to enhance the safety of the food supply. To provide financial support to the Food Safety Network, please visit http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/donation.php. For information on collaboration or fee-for-service opportunities, please contact Dr. Doug Powell: dpowellTo to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), send mail to:listservleave subject line blankin the body of the message type: agnet-L firstname lastnamei.e. agnet-L Doug Powell(replace agnet-L with agnettext to to the text version of agnet)To to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:listservleave subject line blankin the body of the message type:signoff agnet-L(replace agnet-L with agnettext to to the text version of agnet)For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:Dr. Douglas PowellAssociate Professordept. of plant agricultureUniversity of GuelphGuelph, Ont.N1G 2W1tel: 519-824-4120 x54280cell: 519-835-3015fax: 519-763-8933dpowellhttp://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safetyinformation: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)archived at http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet-archives.htm