revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Oct 31, 2012 12:15:48 GMT -5
Oxbowfarm,
There are some radical differences between the approach of two scientists. Michurin's methods are unique and rarely followed elsewhere. Instead, he is often accused for being "anti-science". By searching net on him, when I have found that some gardeners here are interested in his methods and trying to implement that in their own, my curiosity grows from that. After all, if something new and unique come out as a result of using Michurin's method. I personally take great interest in it.
Though both are dead (you are right), but both have their followers. In fact, Borlaug has much more followers in this regard than Michurin. And I hope you know well that vested interests often take the veil of great intentions.
I have started this thread just to know if we use varieties produced by using Michurin's method than Borlaug's, can we then avoid the adverse effect that "modern agriculture" has influenced on environment today. I also want to know instead of using genetically engineered foods, if we produce them by Michurin's method, can those be considered harmful to that level? The basis of Michurin's work is to produce plants (both crop and trees) that can coup up and grow in local environment and can still give good yields. So, there is a high possibility that plants produced by use of his method can be less harmful to environment.
We can be simple hobbyists and gardeners, but does that mean we cannot discuss serious issues related to humanity?
|
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Oct 31, 2012 21:05:08 GMT -5
Revi, you asked if any of us used Borlaug or Michurin style breeding techniques. I was trying to explain that for the most part the breeding work most of us do is much less sophisticated due to the constraints of being hobbyists.
Instead of trying to demonize Dr. Borlaug and his methods, I think it would be better if you just tried to promote the techniques Michurin used that you feel are better and would have the results you claim.
I am not aware of any Michurin varieties. One useful contribution you could make would be to list the varieties and species he worked with and created. Then maybe folks on HG would be able to begin finding sources for them and trialing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Oct 31, 2012 21:20:40 GMT -5
I don't think there is anything wrong with Borlaug's methods. I just disagree with his goals.
|
|
revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Nov 1, 2012 10:05:32 GMT -5
Oxbowfarm,
I have already mentioned it in another thread on Michurin in this forum. And regarding Michurin varieties, you can find it yourself by searching net with Ivan Michurin. But, kindly go through all of my posts that I have posted either in this thread or another thread on Michurin in this forum.
Castanea,
Methods often come in harmony with goals i.e. your goal chooses your methods.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Nov 1, 2012 20:04:12 GMT -5
Revi,
A possibly more relevant comparison might be Luther Burbank vs Michurin. They were much closer contemporaries and the available technical knowledge and "state of the art" was much more comparable than Michurin vs Borlaug who's careers were separated by the Second World War. Ivan Michurin was already deceased before Borlaug had even finished his education.
I have my concerns regarding the social and ecological consequences resulting from the "Green Revolution" and feel that it was implemented without thought to the possible negative consequences. I disagree with the idea that the agronomists like Dr. Borlaug who did the work did so with malicious intent, or that the entire thing was some kind of conspiracy enacted on the developing world.
|
|
revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Nov 1, 2012 20:20:46 GMT -5
Problem with Burbank, as previously discussed is that he rarely noted his methods. In contrary, Michurin, gives full details of his method.
May be Borlaug hasn't done anything with malicious intention, but at the end of day, his methods are found to be deadly harmful to my country (at least).
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Nov 1, 2012 20:54:01 GMT -5
May be Borlaug hasn't done anything with malicious intention, but at the end of day, his methods are found to be deadly harmful to my country (at least). I find it highly unlikely that the work of one plant breeder could be deadly harmful to any country. If vast numbers of farmers in some country today are abusing their land, I wouldn't attribute that to a long-dead plant breeder: It is the fault of millions of farmers who are making cumulative choices today to mistreat their land. We still have the old germplasm. We still know how to make and use the old tools and the old methods. If anyone is upset by the use of the new methods, then I suggest that the best way to undo the damage, is for that individual to only eat foods that are grown by the old methods. I could choose to eat pork, beef, and chicken produced by the old methods: It would cost me 3X to 5X what I pay for them as produced by the new methods. But I don't care... Low prices are more important to me. |
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Nov 1, 2012 21:50:18 GMT -5
Castanea, Methods often come in harmony with goals i.e. your goal chooses your methods. But your methods do not dictate your goals. You can use Borlaug's methods to do any number of good things with breeding. |
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Nov 1, 2012 21:51:28 GMT -5
Problem with Burbank, as previously discussed is that he rarely noted his methods. In contrary, Michurin, gives full details of his method. May be Borlaug hasn't done anything with malicious intention, but at the end of day, his methods are found to be deadly harmful to my country (at least). Some people use guns to kill good people. Other people use guns to kill bad people. The problem is not the guns. The problem is the motivaion of the people who use the guns. |
|
|
|
Post by circumspice on Nov 1, 2012 22:05:48 GMT -5
Is there an agenda somewhere in this thread? What I see is a person trying his best to demonize one breeder & lionize another breeder. To what purpose, I wonder?  |
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Nov 3, 2012 21:39:03 GMT -5
I have a degree in Agronomy, I don't know if it makes me a better farmer or not, but it does give me some insight into why the Green Revolution took the shape it did.
Speaking about the differences between Michurin and Borlaug, the fact that they were agronomists from different eras is very important. Michurin (and Burbank) were scientists from the turn of the 20th century. Science was a much more generalist field back then, an agronomist would have their fingers in many different disciplines and work with many species. It was an era when amateur scientists still made as many important discoveries and contributions to science as professional researchers in universities. And you can see this in the many different crops and cropping systems Michurin and Burbank worked on.
Borlaug was from the modern era of scientific specialization. I'm sure he never even considered breeding a fruit tree. Agronomists don't do that anymore, horticulturalists do. And I'm almost certain Norman Borlaug was strictly a grain breeder. When I was in school it was even more specialized than that, all the breeders would only work with one or two species. Dr. Quick was a wheat breeder, Dr. Ward worked with quinoa, Dr. Brick was the bean breeder, etc.
I would also say that agronomy as discipline in the developed world is madly in love with technology and technical systems. There is a systemic bias towards a market-based agricultural production and mechanization. So the Green Revolution breeding work was done within the context of those biases. The assumption would be that higher yields in an of themselves are a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarJones on Nov 20, 2012 17:35:02 GMT -5
No matter what Burbank, Michurin, or Borlaug achieved, they would be sideline players today. Their methods have been bypassed as completely as the tractor bypasses the mule.
Modern breeding will be based on identifying individual useful genes and incorporating them into a genome. This is being done today by the crude method of marker assisted selection. In the near future, it will be a design process where an entire genome will be carefully mapped and changes scripted to achieve desired goals.
C4 Rice
Leguminous corn
tomatoes impervious to diseases
These are just a few of the goals and objectives of modern breeding work. It is just starting, but what will be done in the next 50 years will totally eclipse everything up to this point.
DarJones
|
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Nov 20, 2012 19:37:19 GMT -5
And every bit of it will be the property of the corporate research sponsor right from the get-go with everything patented until the heat death of the universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by cletus on Nov 22, 2012 19:22:20 GMT -5
I agree fusion, and i'd like to add something. Michurin predicted the specificity of the level of genetic tinkering we're approaching today (to a degree). I think Michurin's methods are interesting because they don't work on the level of the individual gene, but rather more broadly through complex reworking of genetic/epigenetic regulation, on the more network level for creating novelty. You induce shock in clever ways, but its ultimately about the genome's own reordering in response to a shock, through hybridization, graft induced effects, etc. You're kind of relying more on the genome's natural intelligence, letting the restructuring of transposable elements (among other factors) be a source of novelty and complex, multidimensional change. There are of course limits to his approach but it has its pros including lack of high tech/high funds, and I think can still stand to make a significant contribution. Also, the lessons his experiments give us are useful for understanding how intelligent, complex, and fluid the genome is which itself of very relevant to how we approach genetic engineering. I'm thinking along the lines of the stuff Dr. James Shapiro says here beginning at around 38 minutes. Not to conflate Dr. Shapiro and Michurin but there is crossover. www.youtube.com/watch?v=06hUABCuXBw |
|
|
|
Post by cletus on Dec 6, 2012 11:59:54 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYQeeVPfRoE Raj Patel on the Green Revolution. I found this an engaging, fascinating presentation. There is a lot you could say about it. I've been familiar with a lot of the ecological and economic critiques of the Green Revolution, but I had no idea its underlying political objectives ie. fight communism. Borlaug never intended his system to be adopted by small producers or peasants, or to feed the rural poor. The cult of the experts, the centralized model of science and knowledge, is a distinctly polar approach to that of Michurin. He saw the people on the land themselves as the ultimate creators of highly adapted plant diversity. He also was consistently critical of the expert breeders of his day, his experience contradicting much of the prevailing wisdom. Its amazing, with both Borlaug and Michurin, just how much politics has to play in the story. Besides hybrid vigor, I would say the approaches of the two men are pretty polar. All you really hear about Borlaug is wheat (monoculture mind?), while Michurin made progress is in dozens of different kinds of bushes, vegetables, herbs, and trees. Michurin's entire methodology was designed to be useful with low-resources, which is a quicker and revolutionary way of directing the evolution of perennials (annuals also). His unique creativity came out of necessity/poverty. Even when he finally received lots of help from the state, he was clear that his breeding/selection methods could by applied widely without huge amounts of money/infrastructure (they allow for a more directed influence instead of searching for chance variation from large numbers of crosses). This contrasts not only with Borlaug's style of selection, but his intentions (large scale producers/landowners), as well as his production system context (ie. the best land, with lots of groundwater, etc.). Borlaug was more about fitting a style of production, while Michurin was concerned more with diversity of diverse crops. With the spread of Green Revolution methods, genetic diversity radically decreased in indigenous crops (even in the same crop, i.e. rice in Indonesia).
|
|
