Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Sequence Coffee Genome, Ponder Genetic Modification
nbauman sends word that researchers have completed a project to sequence the genome of Coffea canephora, a species of plant responsible for roughly 30% of the world's coffee production. In the course of their genetic mapping, the researchers "pinpointed genetic attributes that could help in the development of new coffee varieties better able to endure drought, disease and pests, with the added benefit of enhancing flavor and caffeine levels." They also discovered a broad range of genes that contribute to the production of flavor-related compounds and caffeine. Plant genomist Victor Albert said, "For any agricultural plant, having a genome is a prerequisite for any sort of high technology breeding or molecular modification. Without a genome, we couldn't do any real advanced research on coffee that would allow us to improve it — not in this day and age."
I don't drink coffee
Add THC to the coffee bean, sell it at Starbucks. You'll make billions.
Without a genome, we couldn't do any real advanced research on coffee that would allow us to improve it — not in this day and age.
Is pure shite. It is called selective breeding, and it has been done for centuries. While that may not be advanced enough for you tastes, it works, and it improves plant varietals. You do not have to splice DNA to make improvements.
One day we may just go to far and drop like honeybees in a Monsanto cornfield.
Silence is a state of mime.
knowing the threat to our vital supply of hot black ichor was in peril, scientists of all fields have clearly exhibited a remarkable drive to solve this problem. Cancer, supercomputing, and most modern breakthrough technologies would have ground to a halt without some means of ensuring a steady supply of our dark glory bean. In honor of these brave scientists, I propose a toast of the finest coffee this mornings breakroom has to offer.
Good people go to bed earlier.
A potent skunk variety of coffee has been recently banned !! . Reports suggest the so called "lunar launcher" could be 20-40% more potent than regular coffee. Some states are pushing for a legislation to allow it for medical use.
_________________
what? it's morning already!!! zzz
Coming soon to a Monsantobucks near you!
Don't fuck with my coffee!!!
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
I was not familiar with the name coffea canephora so I looked it up. This is what I have heard in the past called coffea robusta. Maybe the name got changed to disguise what it is. A lot of people know what robusta coffee is. For those who don't know, robusta is considered an inferior species of coffee. Ever heard of coffees that say that they are 100% arabica? This is because just about everybody considers arabica to be superior to robusta. Robusta is used in blends because it is is very bitter. Robusta is more disease resistant and has higher crop yields than arabica, but I've never heard of it being used in concentrations of more than maybe 1o to 15% in blends. Usually the amount used is less than 10%. This is great, I guess, and I suppose if there were 100% robusta blends some crazy people would love it. Currently in the USA there's a big interest in making craft beers as bitter as possible. Those kind of people, who are in the minority, would probably love large robusta blends. But until they sequence and maybe talk about doing things to protect arabica from disease, this is mildly interesting and no more.
Coffee is already perfect. Mess with it at your peril.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Let's do it for science.
Isolate out the caffiene genes, and start adding it to other plants. There are times I'm eating breakfast, and I'm thinking "Why am I only getting caffiene from the coffee? Buzz up them hashbrowns! Perk up that toast! If we can introduce it into animals, think about caffinated eggs, or butter, or cheese. We can finally jitter up the world.
I have a feeling that they will try. There is something troubling about all the world's good coffee being a genetic monoculture, especially given that Arabica is a rather sensitive plant. Robusta gets its name not for the kind of coffee it produces, but because it's just hardier and less fussy to grow. If I could help direct the research, I would say that they figure out what is responsible for the pleasing flavor of Arabica, and get Robusta to taste like that.
The problem with Monsanto modifying the genes of plants is that:
In my mind, the last item is the one that I care most about, although the superweeds are a close second. Also, as kruach aum says, you appear to be pretty ignorant about how this all works, so your opinion as to what's safe or unsafe or a good idea is not well-informed, and hence not something anybody needs to pay much attention to. I say this not to put you down, but rather to encourage you to become better informed: to actually try to understand the science rather than just making a simplistic mental model of it and then conjecturing on the basis of that model. That way of thinking is extremely damaging to our culture at present, and you really should stop doing it.
Genetic modification is probably the only way to make decaffeinated coffee that's still tasty. Breeding for low caffeine content produces sickly, unproductive strains, and decaffeination ruins the taste. There's a huge market for decaffeinated coffee that tastes less bad:
http://www.economist.com/node/1858921
It's a problem. Snobby espresso shops usually refuse to even make decaf. Also decaffeinated coffee isn't really caffeine-free, so this could be improved. It's about 0.1x as much caffeine as regular coffee:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20061011/decaf-coffee-isnt-caffeine-free
Breeding methods probably won't do better than that, but proper genetic engineering might.
I realize you personally may like as much caffeine as possible in your coffee, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge untapped market for better decaf.
The coffee world is already deep in bed with the organic, fare-trade, square-deal, jump-through-hoops, still-tastes-the-same movement(s). GMO coffee will make these folks lose their excrement in old testament fashion. Should be amusing to watch.
There's no logic behind your argument. Selective breeding is by definition not 'natural. Also, you might want to look up 'horizontal gene transfer.' Nature transplants genes too, and in a less controlled way. The technology is not inherently flawed, but there are issues with out usage, including biodiversity.
If you want to ban patents on GMO, I am 100% with you. That will be a blow to Monsanto but not get in the way of things like golden rice.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
spherical sheep vs cubical cow. FIGHT!
Assuming you're talking about the Vendômois study, that paper was retracted by the journal.
The line of rats used are prone to tumors even with normal food. Combine that with a small sample size and one cannot say whether it was the food or their normal bad genes that caused the tumors.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but to my knowledge there are no well-designed studies that actually demonstrate a causal link between eating GMO foods and disease.
Um, evolution in most plants is "trying to make them taste BAD", otherwise, they... get eaten.
You got any idea how / why there is yummy fruit surrounding a seed?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
The effects and method of action of BT genes and their subsequent Cry proteins are well known, understood, and regularly used even in organic agriculture. All plants naturally produce their own chemicals/pesticides, otherwise pests would just be eating the shit out of them and they'd go extinct. Adding one more already naturally occurring pesticide that is demonstrably unharmful to humans is really no sweat.
Herbicides such as glyphosate were in use long before genetic technology came along, and for good reason: it's relatively benign compared to other more harsh and toxic herbicides that it replaced, and it was much more successful because it was broad spectrum and could kill a wide variety of pest plants rather than having to use two or three different herbicides to accomplish the same. It's for all these reasons that it was chosen as the target for resistance engineering, not the other way around. The idea of "superweeds" is a little ridiculous because at worst, weeds become resistant to glyphosate and we're simply right back where we started before. It's not like these weeds are suddenly going to be super hardy and resistant to everything and begin taking over the world. They'll simply be resistant to glyphosate.
When you're spending hundreds of thousands to millions on R&D, you kinda want to protect your investment. Plant patents have been around a lot longer than GMO technology anyway. Farmers are falling over each other trying to buy GMO seeds, and no one is forcing them to sign contracts that they don't want to. Anyone is free to go and buy non-GMO seeds wherever they like. Farmers aren't doing this, of course, because the GMO traits allow them to get better yields with fewer inputs, thus making better profits. GMO crops hurting small farmers is laughable to the farmers using them. Unless you think farmers are stupid hicks who don't know how to math.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.