Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Brits Ready Crops For Global Warming 83

Posted by Hemos from the gearing-up-for-a-brave-new-world dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Not wanting to come up short at the dinner table, British researchers are developing new crops for a dryer, hotter UK. Starting with barley, they're turning genes on and off to help plants overcome their affinity for the country's cool, wet summers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brits Ready Crops For Global Warming More

Brits Ready Crops For Global Warming

Comments Filter:

  • Thats good... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tgd ( 2822 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:07PM (#14539623)
    Unless of course the other half of climatologists are right and global warming shuts down the north atlantic current and "buried under ice" is what they get instead of "hot and dry".

    • Re:Thats good... (Score:3, Funny)

      by mellon ( 7048 ) *
      Well, sure, but there are plenty of lichens up in the Cairngorms that they can use in that eventuality.

      • Wow... (Score:2)

        by tgd ( 2822 )
        First thing I thought was "Does Kate Beckinsale come with 'em?"

        Then I realized you were talking about things that grow on rocks.

        Man, I'm a nerd. A horny one, at that.

    • Re:Thats good... (Score:5, Funny)

      by aug24 ( 38229 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:38PM (#14539935) Homepage
      AIUI the current prediction is freezing winters due to lack of North Atlantic Drift and hot summers caused by high pressure belts extending from the blazing dustbowl that will be Europe, separated by wet springs and autumns

      This being perfect grape growing conditions, and the south downs being big chalky farmland, I for one, welcome our new champagne growing... ah, fuck it.

      Justin.

    • Well at least they are starting with the right crop.

      All Ales and Scotch whiskys are made from the fermented malt whitch comes from barley.

      You'd be crazy to believe they use it exclusively for their soups and porridge.

      Plenty of Ale and fine Scotch = No thirsty folk of the U.K. and this leads to a happier less warring and a more easy going lot.

      Lots's of barley = Happy Brits (easy math man!)

    • No kidding; they're really going to be in trouble if all their crops are engineered for heat and the NA current brings on a local ice age, as some doomsdayers predict [see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/11 30_051130_ice_age.html/ [nationalgeographic.com]]. Maybe Brits should diversify their investments at the seed bank.

  • Meh... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nathan s ( 719490 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:07PM (#14539624) Homepage
    Whatever happened to old-fashioned selecting crops? If you plant enough of them and grow them for a few years, you'll be able to get seeds that are suited for your area, if I'm not mistaken. Is it just the shortcut factor that makes the GM appealing in this case?

    Not that I'm against genetic modification in principle, but I'm just curious if it's really that much superior to simple selection.

    • Re:Meh... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chalex ( 71702 )
      You've got it exactly right. "Simple selection" takes several generations, that is, many many years. In the lab, the same things can be done in months.

    • Re:Meh... (Score:4, Informative)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:08PM (#14540331) Journal
      Whatever happened to old-fashioned selecting crops? If you plant enough of them and grow them for a few years, you'll be able to get seeds that are suited for your area, if I'm not mistaken. Is it just the shortcut factor that makes the GM appealing in this case?
      This seems to be a common mis-conception, especially in the USA. GM allows genes from completely different organisms (including from animals and fish) to be inserted into the plant.

      This is substantially different to cross-polination/natural selection, since the range of genes that can be added using natural methods is limited to essentially similar plants. Ever see a fish mating with a wheat plant?

      • GM allows genes from completely different organisms (including from animals and fish) to be inserted into the plant.

        That occurred to me, but I wasn't sure how glow-in-the-dark plants would be very useful against global warming. ;-)

      • Re:Meh... (Score:3, Informative)

        by atherton2 ( 728611 )
        Selection and plant breeding do allow for plants to be tailored to thierenviroments, but this can and has for most crop varieties taken hudreds if not thousands of years of farmers and breeders selceting and crossing promising lines. The advantages of GM are many and varied: 1. as mentioned earlier you can take a gene from any spiceis and place it into the host, 2. you can break linkage between genes 3. you can alter promation of genes 4. other stuff...I won't go on and on. 5. you can do all off this a hell

      • Re:Meh... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Vellmont ( 569020 )

        Ever see a fish mating with a wheat plant?

        And here lies the central problem with the anti-GM crowd. The FUD they (and you in this story) spread is that GM means inserting "fishiness" in our plants. If you knew a little bit more about biology and genetics you'd know there's no such thing as a fish gene. The argument is a little like saying there's such a thing as "car steel" and putting "car steel" into an airplane makes the airplane tainted because it now has "carr-i-ness" associated with it.

        • And here lies the central problem with the anti-GM crowd. The FUD they (and you in this story) spread is that GM means inserting "fishiness" in our plants.

          Strawman. I wrote no such thing.

          I discussed taking a gene from a fish and inserting it into a plant. Such is possible with GM. I understand that we are talking about a gene that gives a certain characteristic (such as making a glow-in the-dark onion -- as was demonstrated in the Royal Institution's Christmas lectures last December).

          You could argue th


          • Strawman. I wrote no such thing.


            Right, you only compared GM to mating wheat to fish. Fess up and admit you're spouting anti-GM talking points instead of a knee jerk response of claiming staw man arguments.
      • Ever see a fish mating with a wheat plant? Yes. I have.
      • > Ever see a fish mating with a wheat plant?

        That just put a really, really ugly image in my mind that I'm afraid will stay with me forever ... bastard.

    • Re:Meh... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mikesmind ( 689651 )
      Genetic modification has a lot to do with patents and licensing. There is not enough money (profits) in crossing varieties the old-fashioned way.

      • Re:Meh... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 )

        Genetic modification has a lot to do with patents and licensing. There is not enough money (profits) in crossing varieties the old-fashioned way.

        There sure as hell will be when the GM ones get wiped out due to lack of bio-diversity or because the ability for the plants to produce new seed has been removed so you have to buy from the manufacturer.

        Then all of those 'heirloom' varieties are going to become more valuable than you could ever imagine.

        The natural versions of those plants survived just fine for tho


  • I thought all this global warming was diluting the Gulf Stream, slowing it down and making Great Britain colder [scienceblog.com].

    So which is it?

    • Re:Now hang on a minute... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:41PM (#14539969)
      Well, it doesn't have to be one or the other. The original article states:

      If British summers get hotter and drier we will need types of wheat, barley and other crops that flower earlier, like Mediterranean varieties, to beat summer droughts.


      So they are developing crops for summer conditions. The (corrected) link about the effect on the gulf stream, OTOH, states:

      "We know that if the current slows down, it will lead to a drop in temperatures in Britain and northern Europe of a few degrees, but the effect isn't even over the seasons. Most of the cooling would be in the winter, so the biggest impact would be much colder winters,"...

      The final impact of any cooling effect will depend on whether it outweighs the global warming that, paradoxically, is driving it. According to climate modellers, the drop in temperature caused by a slowing of the Atlantic current will, in the long term, be swamped by a more general warming of the atmosphere.


      So, while an interuption in the gulf stream may result in colder UK winters, it may have less of an effect on the summers, which then may be warmer due to general global warming. Lower water temperatures in the north atlantic will also mean less moisture in the air, and a drier climate. So, if you actually take the time to read both of these articles (the original and the second one liked by the AC), you'll find that they are not in conflict at all.

      --

      Debunk the Monk!
  • Would be genetically-engineering plants -- including edible plants -- to use climate-changing gases to grow, and release less of them into the atmosphere.

    If, for instance, useful trees (fruit trees, oaks, pine and birch for instance) could be engineered to use more CO2 and release less methane (which they seem to be doing right now), that would be a fantastic incentive to plant more trees and therefore absorb more carbon into forests instead of releasing it into the atmosphere.

    With a lot of work and a bit o

    • Re:One interesting research possibility... (Score:5, Informative)

      by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:27PM (#14539839) Homepage Journal
      It matters on a lot of things. Take South Africa for example. Early European settlers were shocked by the treeless terrain so they spread pine, oak, and other water hungry plants around the country side. Those trees drink a lot more water then the native plants and have cause rivers to dry up to nothing more then trickles. With less water flowing down stream other plant life suffers and the landscape is drying out.

      There are now government programs that are going through cutting back these huge trees. The effects have been amazing. Not only have the rivers started flowing more water, but the native plant life is bouncing back and some of South Africa's unemployed are getting jobs and training.

      -Rick
      • There are now government programs that are going through cutting back these huge trees. The effects have been amazing. Not only have the rivers started flowing more water, but the native plant life is bouncing back and some of South Africa's unemployed are getting jobs and training.

        Unfortunately for the environment in other areas of the world, they're getting training in the subject of "cutting down big trees".
    • One problem (increased usage of water) has already been addressed by another poster.

      Another big problem with your idea is the way it affects the radiation balance. Earth receives sunlight, reflects a part of it and absorbs the rest. When plants grow, they turn sunlight into energy. This means leaves 'absorb' sunlight, changing the balance between incoming and reflected light. As a result of this the temperature could rise (when the effect of extra sunlight absorbtion is larger than the reduced greenhouse

  • Wrong direction (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jrootham ( 170856 )
    This may be heading in the wrong direction. The expected perverse consequence of global warming for Britain is the shut down of the Gulf Stream and consequently much colder weather. If it dries out as well, Canadian wheat will be the crop to go to.

  • What a bloody brilliant idea! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AEther141 ( 585834 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:17PM (#14539712)
    Instead of worrying about all this climate change nonsense we can just genetically modify ourselves and our food to suit. Oh, except if these guys had spent half an hour ringing round a few climatolagists they would have found out that the most likely outcome isn't a smooth, predictable change in temperature but wild, chaotic swings in climate caused by a million climate systems and feedback loops (not limited to the gulfstream) going totally out of whack.

    • Oh, except if these guys had spent half an hour ringing round a few climatolagists they would have found out that the most likely outcome isn't a smooth, predictable change in temperature but wild, chaotic swings in climate caused by a million climate systems and feedback loops (not limited to the gulfstream) going totally out of whack.

      Yes, and the best climatoagists can't be sure whether it's going to rain tommorow or not, so I'm not sure I would take their predictions over several years as a sure thing...

      • "Yes, and the best climatoagists can't be sure whether it's going to rain tommorow or not, so I'm not sure I would take their predictions over several years as a sure thing..."

        You have no idea what climate means do you? Kinda sad since there have been a gazillon posts that pointing out climate != weather. What you have said above is like saying we have no idea what the annual road toll will be for 2006 because we can't figure out who will get killed in traffic accidents tommorow!

  • Britain to get hotter or colder? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dmatos ( 232892 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:27PM (#14539832)
    Well, a whole bunch of people have already pointed out that the current widely accepted hypothesis is that global warming will shut down the gulf stream, and make Britain colder. However,

    The Gulf stream tends to have a moderating effect on Britain. It makes the winters warmer and the summers cooler. If the Gulf Stream shuts down, won't that just eliminate the moderating effect? Wouldn't you have colder winters and warmer summers? If that's the case, then developing plants that can survive in a hotter climate (during the hotter growing season) is the right move.
    • The *sea* has a moderating effect (because of the huge heat capacity of water). The gulf stream has a overall warming effect. The average temeprature of Britain is much higher than the corresponding part of Siberia, even if summer temeperatures may be lower.

      Our part of the world would not be warm enough for agriculture (just like Siberia isn't) if it was not for the gulf stream.

  • 2 Issues (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sody ( 940054 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:37PM (#14539921)
    Most predictions I have read say that the currents now operating in the Northern Atlantic keep the climate warm and moist. So, colder and drier seem to be the more likely changes. (Not hotter and drier, as the article states.)

    No doubt this type of change could also be accounted for with genetic engineering, but I was under the impression that the British and most Europeans in general were pretty dead set against about "frankenfoods" that had been genetically modified. Does this project really stand a chance of getting off the ground if it depends on this sort of technology?

    As for the slelective breeding option, I'm not convinced that would work, either. Selective cultivation depends on having some sort of genetic variablility in the current population. The more desirable traits are slected for. Current stocks of seed are not terribly genetically diverse, and if they don't mutate fast enough, you may not be left with enough genetic variants to choose from. Also, this type of selection requires a lot of time--something which may or may not be available as the climate changes.

    • Current stocks of seed are not terribly genetically diverse, and if they don't mutate fast enough, you may not be left with enough genetic variants to choose from.

      You can always use mutation breeding: using radiation, or nasty nasty chemicals, to massivly increase mutation and speed up the breeding process. Mutation breeding came out well before the enviornmental movement, and they have been doing it so many years that the greenies don't really have a problem with it. (Ironicly enough, genetic engineering i
    • "No doubt this type of change could also be accounted for with genetic engineering, but I was under the impression that the British and most Europeans in general were pretty dead set against about "frankenfoods" that had been genetically modified."

      True, but Hunger has a way of overcoming taboos against food types.

      Also, there is a quite difference between GM plants/animals where genes from other organisms have been introduced, and GM products where only the expression of already present genes have been
  • What happened to the Mini Ice Age [slashdot.org]? Can't we just PICK ONE horrible future and stick with it?

  • Figures... (Score:4, Funny)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:45PM (#14540016)
    Starting with barley

    In other words, "Forget the orphans, save the beer!"
    • In other words, "Forget the orphans, save the beer!"

      Spot ON!

      Now, they have fix hops, or maybe heather [nyud.net] to make sure those survive as well.

      Beer drinker.

    • Starting with barley

      In other words, "Forget the orphans, save the beer!"
      And the scotch single malt whisky. Mustn't forget the scotch! [maltmadness.com] Without the revenues from it's export, they wouldn't be able to feed the orphans their beer.
  • What is the expected rate of climatic change in the near future?
    Will they be able to modify and implement crops inside the predicted time line?
    Anyone living there now confirm these changes?

    Canada is going through some serious changes right now.
    Normally, it is -30 degrees Celcius (-30 x 1.8 + 32 = -86F) here.
    We are currently at +10C and sustaining this over weeks.
    That is a 40C or 50F difference!

    Something is seriously wrong with the weather and it does not seem to be changing slowly.
    • Normally, it is -30 degrees Celcius (-30 x 1.8 + 32 = -86F) here.

      Um, what part of Canada are you from? You've got to be rather far north before -30 is typical. (You also got the temperature conversion wrong - that's -26F [-54+32, not -54-32].)
    • Well, 2 summers ago Winnipeg experienced its first August snow in recorded history. It was the coldest summer overall, by leaps and bounds. Calgary just experienced a colder than average spring and summer, with snow in the mountains lasting well into August that normally melts by June.

      For every anecdote of a warmer-than-average day/month/season, you can find one of a colder-than-average day/month/season. It doesn't mean the sky is falling, it means that there's no such thing as "normal" temperatures.
      • Guys in BC are reporting a LOT of rain.
        Trees budding already.

        No doubt there is a lot of changes going on all over the place.
        From where I sit, things are just not right at all.

        If Alberta does not get a sustained snow/rain fall before spring, there is going to be water restrictions/bans and a whole lot of fire fighting going on.

        The fire fighters I work for are already reporting for duty in January.
        That is just crazy.

        Just so you don't think I'm doing the Chicken Little dance, here is the long term forcast 9-12
        • So what you're saying is, we might see a repeat of the summers of 89-91. Hotter than average, dryer than average. Or maybe we'll see a repeat of the 30s. Or any other year where temperatures have been above average. Great. We've seen many where they've been below average.

          The long-term forcasts you linked to aren't interesting - they're forcasting a warmer than average year? Hate to break it to you, but by definition, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME YEARS WARMER THAN THE AVERAGE. Otherwise each and every year will be e
          • Sorry man, but your not going to convince me.
            Lived here for most of my life and NEVER has the weather been like this.
            Again today we broke temps from 1892.

            There are bicycles and motorbikes on the roads!
            Never seen that in January and no one else here has either.

            There is NO moisture and it is +9C at night!
            The weather has never been like this in recorded history.

            We are cooking!

  • solution in search of a problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:09PM (#14541089) Homepage Journal
    Why not just plant crops that come from hotter, dryer, climates? Or if the other climate model prediciton comes true, shorter, colder growing seasons?
  • Samuel Clemens once observed that "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." Well for once someone's taking some action. Although it might be more appropriate if they observed some facts before taking steps to avert a weather related negative effect. Is it just me or did anybody else just think of New Orleans.
  • Things like corn and melons and peppers and tomatoes. Sweet! Now it's all cabbage, broccoli, cabbage, peas, cabbage, and the odd raddish.
  • Aren't the Brits (or anyone) worried about cross pollination? What if we're going through a 100 year cycle (which many believe)? We would be left with modified seeds that will only do well in dry climates because bees, wasp, and wind transmitted pollen into the wrong fields.
  • Or rather, global warming now has status as a scientific theory, while the gulf stream change is still merely a scientific hypothesis.

    There is no longer any significant opposition to the global warming theory amongst scientifically literate people. There are of course lots of discussion about how large it is going to be, and political differences on whether we should try to limit it, or merely adapt to it. (Mostly the "adaption" side wins, since we can't really do anything without US cooperation. The stu
  • Global warming is here, now, and is already having catastrophic affects in the United States and the world as evidenced in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It's more than an environmental issue; it's about our national security, it's about our public health. It's an urgent matter of survival for everyone on the planet - the most urgent threat facing humanity today. That's why it's going to take more than policy debates and think tanks from governments. It's going to take action - by you, by all of us working t

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close