HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ajt@rri.sari.ac.uk (Tony Travis)
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: Re: plant phys use in breeding
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:14:47 GMT
Reply-To: ajt@rri.sari.ac.uk
Distribution: bionet
Organization: Rowett Research Institute
Original-To: plantbio@uk.ac.daresbury

In article <9289164057.MIN-LDZBa20156.bionet-news@uk.ac.daresbury> you write:
: If I may put in my $.02 worth: 
: 
: The big obstacle IMHO is not so much the time it takes to do a measurement, but
: rather to do a meaningful measurement.

True, but my point was that computers/technology can make the
difference between attempting to make meaningful measurements or simply
weighing the plants in a trial because it would be too costly to do any
other measurements.

: Has anyone ever tried to do leaf photosynthesis or water potentials in a
: corn field (or worse a soybean field?) What is being done is an observation of a single point in time and not a really good indication of the sum total of 
: activity. What leaf was sampled? Was it shaded or in full sun? What was it 
: like ten minutes ago? Was the wind blowing? Darn, theres a cloud coming! ;)

What about experimental design?

: What we need to be thinking of (and it aint easy) is a way to take into account the whole plant response.

That's what weighing the plant measures isn't it :-)

: A real elegant way to apply selection is to use a "suicide screen". One of my
: favorite ones is the selection of plants resistant to toxic amino acid analogs.
: This is physiological selection, is it not? The plants that recover best tend 
: to produce more of the amino acid. 
: 
: To continue along this vein suppose we wanted to select specifically for low 
: respiration rate. What would be nice is to uniformly apply a chemical that 
: penalizes the plant for respiring. I am thinking out loud now, but there must
: be something that would do this. Anybody have any thoughts on this?
: Allen

My particular interest is in modelling the anatomical characteristics
that make crops susceptible to lodging.  It is possible to manipulate
mathematical models in ways that are not practical in field trials and
then return to the field trials to explore interesting areas in more
detail.  The snag, of course, is constructing a good model ...

There is an interesting paper on the modeling of crop canopies by
Tarbell, K.A. Cheng, D.K. and Reid, J.F. (1991) Corn growth and
development attributes obtained using inductive learning techniques.
Transactions of the ASAE, 34, 2264-2271.  I think this is the sort of
approach that will yield the most information eventually.

	Tony.
--
Dr. A.J.Travis,                       |  Tony Travis
Rowett Research Institute,            |  JANET: <ajt@uk.ac.sari.rri>
Greenburn Road, Bucksburn,            |  other: <ajt@rri.sari.ac.uk>
Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK.                |  phone: 0224-712751
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
From: adwright@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: plant phys use in breeding
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:50:08 GMT

If I may put in my $.02 worth: 

The big obstacle IMHO is not so much the time it takes to do a measurement, but
rather to do a meaningful measurement.

Has anyone ever tried to do leaf photosynthesis or water potentials in a
corn field (or worse a soybean field?) What is being done is an observation of a single point in time and not a really good indication of the sum total of 
activity. What leaf was sampled? Was it shaded or in full sun? What was it 
like ten minutes ago? Was the wind blowing? Darn, theres a cloud coming! ;)

What we need to be thinking of (and it aint easy) is a way to take into account the whole plant response.

A real elegant way to apply selection is to use a "suicide screen". One of my
favorite ones is the selection of plants resistant to toxic amino acid analogs.
This is physiological selection, is it not? The plants that recover best tend 
to produce more of the amino acid. 

To continue along this vein suppose we wanted to select specifically for low 
respiration rate. What would be nice is to uniformly apply a chemical that 
penalizes the plant for respiring. I am thinking out loud now, but there must
be something that would do this. Anybody have any thoughts on this?
Allen
From: samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu (S. A. Modena)
Subject: Re: Poppy seed and Poppy plant
Organization: Crop Science Dept., NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:56:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.192010.31367@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>A friend of mine tells me that the poppy seed that
>we find on some bread is the same as the seed for the
>poppy plant that they make marijuana from. 
>
>Can anyone confirm or deny this?
>

Yes, Ralph, it *is* the same.  Also, when you grind up the poppy seeds
with butter (not margarine, butter) your get chocolate.

>
>-- 
>Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
>From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state

Steve
---
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|     In person:  Steve Modena     AB4EL                           |
|     On phone:   (919) 515-5328                                   |
|     At e-mail:  nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu                           | 
|                 samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu                |
|                 [ either email address is read each day ]        |
|     By snail:   Crop Sci Dept, Box 7620, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
         Lighten UP!  It's just a computer doing that to you.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: Re: poppies and pot
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:11:20 GMT
Distribution: bionet
Organization: University of Northern Iowa


 CAMPBELL@FRCICT81.EARN writes:
> BTW, if you are still hung up on the narcotic value of poppy seeds:
> a report presented at the 1988 meeting of the Groupe Polyphenol
> demonstrated the alkaloid content of poppy seed cakes.  From a
> natural products chemistry point of view the content of alkaloids in these
> cakes was significant - from a practical point of view, *rats* would have
> to consume kilogram quantities of the cakes in order to have an alkaloid
> mediated change in cerebral activity (mind you, other natural products would
> probably kill them long before they had that chance).  Stick to coffee.

Here in the Land of Drug Paranoia**, urban legend has it that a whole
busload of army recruits failed their entrance physical, all for
USING HEROIN!!!-- at least, that's what the urinalysis claimed...

Turns out the bus had stopped at a fast food joint that happened to
serve poppyseed hamburger buns...

Kay Klier    Biology Dept  UNI

**We have reached the level of silliness here that some people are
refusing to take ANY drug-- even insulin! and others are preaching that
ALL drug use is wrong.  Me, I still take my ibuprofen, antihistamines, 
and decongestants, just like the MD ordered ;^)   At least to my mind,
there's a difference between "recreational drugs" and therapeutic ones...
From: bryer@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jeff Bryer)
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: Error in Hahlbrock PAL GenBank entries?
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:51:33 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Originator: bryer@spock.cc.umanitoba.ca

If anyone from Klaus Hahlbrock's lab reads this newsgroup,

Regarding the two Genbank entries for the Phenylalanine ammonia lyase genes for
Solanum tuberosum: POTPAL1 (X63103) and POTPAL2 (X63104).  Selected portions
of the features table follow:

POTPAL1
FEATURES             Location/Qualifiers
     exon            1157..1615
                     /number=1
     CDS             1199..1615
     intron          1616..1726
                     /number=1
     exon            1727..3612
                     /number=2

POTPAL2
FEATURES             Location/Qualifiers
     exon            988..1464
                     /number=1
     CDS             1039..1464
     intron          1465..1756
                     /number=1
     exon            1757..>3106
                     /number=2

Upon observation it seems apparent to us that the donor splice junction for
both of the above PAL genes is incorrect.  We believe for POTPAL1 that
exon 1 should be 1157..1611 therby resulting in a CDS of 
join(1199..1611,1727..3476).  Similarly for POTPAL2, exon 1 should be
988..1460 therby resulting in a CDS of join(1039..1460,1757..>3106).

If anyone knows of the whereabouts of H.J. Joos and/or K. Hahlbrock could
they please get in touch with me or refer Joos and/or Hahlbrock to me.

Thank you
J Bryer
-- 
________________________________________________________________________
|  Jeff Bryer              |  Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency  |  
|  bryer@ccu.umanitoba.ca  |  We solve the whole crime                 |        
|  Genetics III            |  We find the whole person                 | 
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
From: rbonfigl@waite.adelaide.edu.au (Rod Bonfiglioli)
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: post failed (fwd)
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:45:52 GMT
Distribution: bionet

Forwarded message:
> From rbonfigl Fri Sep 11 11:32:34 1992
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 11:32:33 +0930
> From: rbonfigl (Rod Bonfiglioli)
> To: rbonfigl
> Subject: post failed
> 
> Article not accepted by server; not posted.
> Duplicate "Path" header/usr/local/lib/news/inews failed
> 
> Your response has been saved in ~/dead.letter
> 
> Your article/letter follows:
> Path: schooner!rbonfigl
> Date: 11 Sep 92 01:59:00 GMT
> Message-ID: <rbonfigl.716176740@schooner>
> Newsgroups: bionet.plants
> Distribution: world
> Subject: fixation for electron microscopy
> Summary: how long do you need to infuse the fixative for?
> Keywords: fixation.infusion.cellwalls
> Organization: The University of Adelaide, Waite Campus
> Faculty: Agricultural & Natural Resource Sciences
> i have had some problems with fixing plant material. the fixative seems to be
> very slow in crossing cell walls or other impermeable parts of the plant tissue.
> the recommended lengths of time in most protocols i find are far too short,
> has anyone else had any experience of this.  is there anyone else out there
> working with electron microscopy on plant tissue??? let me know who you are
> 
> thanx in advance
> 
> rod bonfiglioli
>
From: ajt@rri.sari.ac.uk (Tony Travis)
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: Re: plant phys use in breeding
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: ajt@rri.sari.ac.uk
Distribution: bionet
Organization: Rowett Research Institute
Original-To: plantbio@uk.ac.daresbury

In article <92810050050.MIN-LXDCa20156.bionet-news@uk.ac.daresbury> you write:
: [...]
: For sake of illustrative example, this is what a corn (maize) breeder
: regards as a "quick, easy and cheap" techique:
: 
:      Zuber and Darrah (Univ. of Missouri/Columbia -- USDA) have made
:      excellent progress in selection for and *against* lodging
: [...]

Perhaps you are missing the point of my interest in comparing the
anatomy of crop varieties that differ in their succeptability to
lodging.  I am interested in knowing *why* the differences occur and I
have seen from the literature many qualitative statements about
differences in anatomy.

I am investigating these differences quantitatively.  The knowledge
obtained should enable us to construct a _structural_ model (cf.
empirical model) of how alterations in the proportion of different
tissues in the stem and the distribution of cell types affect both
lodging and degradability.

My point is that it may be more productive to identify interesting
areas by manipulating a computer model than screening fields of plants
hoping to find something.  The objective, of course, is to produce
improved varieties.

Think about it like the Mandlebrot set (as in fractals) which has large
uninteresting areas but very interesting regions to zoom in on and
investigate in detail.  The trick is finding the regions of interest.

	Tony.
--
Dr. A.J.Travis,                       |  Tony Travis
Rowett Research Institute,            |  JANET: <ajt@uk.ac.sari.rri>
Greenburn Road, Bucksburn,            |  other: <ajt@rri.sari.ac.uk>
Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK.                |  phone: 0224-712751
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
From: rjsalvad@iastate.edu (Ricardo J Salvador)
Subject: Re: plant phys use in breeding
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: bionet
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:50:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.161813.25693@gserv1.dl.ac.uk> ajt@rri.sari.ac.uk writes:

>One reason for my interest in the application of computing technology
>to plant biology problems is that it may be possible to attack
>questions that are too expensive to investigate any other way.  I'm
>thinking, for example, of the manual labour associated with making
>detailed anatomical measurements without image analysis.

Tony, I know what you mean, but it must be noted that the infrastructure
necessary to make it possible for you and I to happ'ly sit in our offices
and push buttons to accomplish heretofore labor-intensive tasks is 
significant, as I am sure you realize.  In certain respects, I wonder if
benefiting from such luxury without recognizing the tremendous human and
ecological costs involved is not some form of latter-day "colonial"
haughteur.  I am as intoxicated with the power conferred upon us by
computerized tools, all the more impressive when one realizes that many
tasks accomplished by such tools were utterly beyond the imagination or
intent of the individuals who engineered the tools in the first place,
but I think it is wise to pause and consider costs and consequences of
technology before appraising such subjective attributes as "advancement,
ease, progress, increased efficiency," etc., particularly when the
putative benefits are demonstrably enjoyed by  only a small sector of the
human population, yet depend upon (or detrimentally affect) resources that
can reasonably be considered common property resources of vast sectors of
humanity.

I pause now because this sounds more tendentious in writing than I
intend.

-Ricardo

Newsgroups: bionet.plants
From: dangold1@iastate.edu (Daniel M Goldman)
Subject: plant phys use in breeding
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:45:44 GMT

After many years, research workers are finding some ways of
putting the tools of plant physiology to use in the service
of plant breeding, which are, finally, escaping attacks from the
worst critics.  I've been reading both sides of the debate to
see what the arguments are all about, and of course find some
truth on both sides, something the extremists seem to have 
missed (or simply won't admit).  Is anyone else interested in
this area?  The topics span everying from hormone (and other
compound) monitoring, to carbohydrate partitioning/growth 
analysis (a pet interest of mine) to chlorophyll fluoresecence.
It seems to me there are some useful tools which could be 
developed more, and perhaps *will* be now that there have been 
a few small sucesses.  Maybe the scientific mental block which
has pervaded this topic for so long is finally breaking down.
Partly, this may be due to some of the genetic technology which
allows us to look at chromosomes and trait loci more precisely.

Anyone with any interest or thoughts on this, please post.  I'm
still trying to learn more about this.  I work with some of the
best plant breeders around, and I see some opportunities developing.
Thanks -DmG
From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: Herbicide rates, germplasms (was information based farming)
Date: 12 Sep 92 10:25:05 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu (S. A. Modena) writes:
... Post emergergence herbicides are
> applied at the rate of 0.33 to 1.75 PINTS-per-ACRE for liquids and up
> to 2 OZ-per-ACRE for solids.  So weight 30 grams of salt and go 
> distribute it (as an aqueous solution) over an acre lawn...then
> come back and lick the grass: can you taste the salt ?  :^)

Uh, bit of a straw man here.  Spray 30 grams of botulinin and lick the grass;
you'll get a different result!  ;^)

I'm not anti-pesticide-- this just reminds me a (deceased) weed scientist
who used to drink a glass of 2,4-D to "prove" it was OK to use.   (Gack!)

>>genetic engineering necessary to produce resistant crop varieties is costly,
>>only one (or a very few) varieties of a given crop are likely to be produced
>>with this resistance, so if this is widely accepted, then the germplasm base
>>present in the fields will be very narrow.  Huge acreage planted to a single 
>>variety is an ideal situation for a disease epidemic.
> 
> Well, this might be your approach, but seed companies like Pioneer Hi-bred
> International are more sophisticated and pragmatic than to encourage
> this sort of practice.

Oh?  How about the Texas Male Sterile Cytoplasm fiasco in the 1970's?
How many farmers sweated the southern corn leaf blight epidemic?  How much
did Pioneer and Garst and all the other Big Guys spend on a southern
hemisphere winter season seed increase to have enough non-TMS seed for
the next season?

> In fact, it's the small seed producer that buys generic hybrids made from
> public elite inbreds from foundation seed companies, that can make your
> senario come true.  Every garage operator is bagging up B73 x Mo17 (or
> whatever is most popular now) under his own label.
> 
> Have you looked at how many lines Pioneer offers for a given geographic
> region?  Are they carbon copies, differing by one gene?  I don't think
> so. 

IMHO, one of the major problems we are facing in agriculture is the relatively
narrow genetic base of *most* of our crops.  Look at John Doebley's
work with the corn-belt corns.  Most (75+%?) of the sorghum seed in this
country has one particular cultivar (Redlan, if memory serves) in its
pedigree.  These lines are certainly not near-isogenic, but they ARE only
a tiny fraction of the gene pool.

Kay Klier  Biology Dept  UNI

Newsgroups: bionet.plants
From: dangold1@iastate.edu (Daniel M Goldman)
Subject: plant phys and breeding
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:41:20 GMT

  Responses to my original posting, regarding the use of plant 
physiology in plant breeding, have been interesting.  Some of the
historic criticisms have surfaced, which others have responded to
adequately for now.  I will chime in on some of this when I collect
more specifics.  Steve, I appreciate your request for less ambiguity,
and frankly, you layed out the issue clearly enough that I won't 
try and improve upon it. A few more thoughts:
  1)I invite discussion on what *could* work, not what won't or can't
work, unless the latter is tied to the search for a solution.  Surely some
of you have ideas.  I for one would like to hear them.  Some of the
problems are technical, some are mental. Perhaps we need to make sure
these do not get confused.
  2)We might not be able to use crops like wheat as an example for what
can be accomplished in corn.  As one of our breeders pointed out, 
producing genetically superior HYBRIDS, such as in corn, requires a
different approach than producing genetically superior VARIETIES (I
use the term loosely) such as in wheat (where hybrids are reletively
few). However, there is something to be said for using a simpler 
system to come up with a model which might be applied to a more complex
situation. What we learn on wheat may, with experience, be very useful
for hybrid production.
  3) Lets not be too reductionist. While single, instantaneous 
measurements are often taken on single plants, we do have several
satellites which go overhead every few days or hours.  Perhaps this
illustrates that there is room for both approaches, as they are 
related, not separate.  Those space and airplane photos are shooting
groups of individual plants, which comprise the canopy.  With all the
data pouring in from space, we still don't know what it all means: we
are data rich and information poor.  We MUST know what the plants and
tissues on the ground are doing if we are ever to reach the mass
screening stage.  I think the connection is obvious.
  4) To the critics I say, let's not punish the future for the sins of
the past.  If physiology *has* not delivered, let's not assume that it
never will.  I see great posssibilities.  I'd like to hear from others
on what they see.  Even fighter planes started as an idea. 
-DmG
FR*ATLAS*CICT; arrival Tue, 15 Sep 92 13: 35:03 +0100 action Relayed
From: CAMPBELL@FRCICT81.EARN
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: poppies and pot
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:35:03 GMT
Distribution: bionet
P1-Message-Id: FR*ATLAS*CICT; 920915131124734-CICT-TLSE
Original-To: plantbio@UK.AC.DARESBURY
Ua-Content-Id: 920915131124734-

Fellow plantbionetters,
 
Much as I would like to discuss the virtues of American Fighter Jets
(no offence Toby, I noticed that even you were reluctant to pursue the
subject), I saw something which ran through bionet-plants the other day
which was *plant* related and to which someone (from a Crop Science Dept.,
I believe) posted some mis-information as a reply.  Given that this is
a forum for plant biology, perhaps the original post should be replied to
with a rectified response.
 
The original post was interested in determining if marijuana could be grown
from poppy seeds.  Someone responded 'That's right!'.  Not true.  Even
a lowly biochemist who happens to work on trees (like me (;-)) can tell
you that poppy seeds come from _Papaver somniferum_  whereas if you are
interested in growing hemp of the narcotic variety you should use
seeds from _Cannabis sativa_.  Hope this clarifies the situation.
 
BTW, if you are still hung up on the narcotic value of poppy seeds:
a report presented at the 1988 meeting of the Groupe Polyphenol
demonstrated the alkaloid content of poppy seed cakes.  From a
natural products chemistry point of view the content of alkaloids in these
cakes was significant - from a practical point of view, *rats* would have
to consume kilogram quantities of the cakes in order to have an alkaloid
mediated change in cerebral activity (mind you, other natural products would
probably kill them long before they had that chance).  Stick to coffee.
 
Now plantbionetters, back to your regularly scheduled rhetoric...
 
Malcolm
 
Malcolm M. Campbell, Ph.D.
Equipe Lignin
Centre de Physiologie Vegetale
Universite Paul Sabatier
Toulouse, FRANCE
 
CAMPBELL@FRCICT81.BITNET
 
Disclaimer: Malcolm qui?
From: browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown)
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: Re: Poppy seed and Poppy plant
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:03:46 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep11.192010.31367@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>A friend of mine tells me that the poppy seed that
>we find on some bread is the same as the seed for the
>poppy plant that they make marijuana from. 
>
>Can anyone confirm or deny this?
>
>
>-- 
>Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
>From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state

I think you mean the poppy plant that heroin and morphine are made from, and theanswer is yes.  Marijuana is hemp.
-- 
Stuart M. Brown                             If you can remain cool when all 
U. of Manitoba, Dept. Plant Science         Around you are in panic,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA
browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca            Then you surely misunderstand the situation