It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indonesia's "Frankentrees" turn cocoa dream into nightmare

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Indonesia recently spent some $350mil to boost cocoa production. They chose to do this by a vast cloning project. Cloning trees and distributing the seedlings to farmers. What could possibly go wrong?

Indonesia's "Frankentrees" turn cocoa dream into nightmare


PINRANG/JAKARTA, Oct. 15, 2012 (Reuters) — Nurhaedah, a vivacious Indonesian cocoa trader, shakes her head in disappointment as she sifts through a pile of blackened, shrivelled beans. Yet another crop from "Frankentrees": weak, misshapen cocoa trees toppling under their own weight.

A $350-million campaign to boost cocoa yields in Indonesia, the world's third largest producer of the commodity, is turning sour as farmers send streams of poor-quality beans plucked from the defective trees to a collecting centre Nurhaedah runs.

"Farmers are complaining the beans are so small they look like roasted peanuts," said Nurhaedah, as her deft fingers sought out the bigger beans whose size indicated better quality.

"I don't think anyone has told us what went wrong. Many trees have fallen down and when you pull them up, it's obvious they don't have taproots."


This is a breaking story. I've been trying to find the culprits of the original cloning. Thus far, my best theories are work where Penn State Uses Cloning Technology To Improve Cocoa Plants. Maybe in conjunction with this effort by Mars in Indonesia. Mars in Indonesia - Case Study

Either way - it appears another attempt to mess with nature gone awry.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
When will they learn


If you want to improve something look to nature first.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


If you want to improve something look to nature first.
Plant cloning has been used for hundreds (if not thousands) of years very successfully. You've never taken a cutting from a plant and started another? That's a clone.

While poor clones may be the culprit here, apparently the starts may not have been treated properly.


"There were cases when nursery workers didn't properly treat the roots. I don't want to blame anyone, but it may also be due to our fault for not providing clear instruction to farmers," said ICCRI research head Soetanto Abdoellah.
www.newsdaily.com...

edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
When will they learn


If you want to improve something look to nature first.


How would the bio-tech companies make a profit, then? Sheesh!

(KIDDING!!!!)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


How perfectly sound a response from nature. Quite clearly mother nature is telling us loudly and clearly - cloning me is not going to work and not going to bring anyone a profit in terms of dollars.

I cannot help but think of all the Children in Africa who are kidnapped and taken to work on the cocoa plantations. A very brave documentary maker hid cameras in his clothing to obtain footage of the Children - machetes in hand. I shall search for the title of the documentary and list it later - for those who are interested.

Chocolate, I must admit is my weakness but over the years, as I learn of what goes on before I eat the chocolate - I am less and less inclined to indulge. This article is a glaring example of a society out of control. Nature provides us with everything we need - if only we could share and live without greed.

Thanks for posting - I found this article very thought provoking.

Much Peace...



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Throw the word clone in, add a little Frankenstein imagery, explain how it appears right out of a horror story (And first it was the cloned plants that rebelled... mother nature was finally striking back.) and viola!

Obviously there is a difference here between a cutting and this technique. What caught my eye in the story is this

Seedlings from the new clone take only three years to produce cocoa pods, versus four years for non-cloned varieties.
. What do they expect? This is akin to breeding runts. You don't breed a racing horse because it's on it's feet and singing "A horse is a horse, of course, of course!" as soon as it slips outta mummy.


Somatic embryogenesis is a process where a plant or embryo is derived from a single somatic cell or group of somatic cells. Somatic embryos are formed from plant cells that are not normally involved in the development of embryos, i.e. ordinary plant tissue. No endosperm or seed coat is formed around a somatic embryo.


It does not sound like it would produce viable living, thriving, life.

When this christian god cuts corners, we get intelligent deformity. The poor souls can tell us how life is living in an encased physically restricted world.

to make the point... man should not cut corners and expect anything close to good enough. But since we're making the rule book up as we go along, there are bound to be pitfalls along the way to omnipotence.

I'm someone who looks very carefully at things around me, and most of the time when I see a lot of commotion, I see the same things and it drives me insane with all the ignorance and apathy towards learning.... some people speak some insane things because they just don't know better.

But seriously, the more even I age the more even I shake my head and wonder just how far the tendrils of covert science really go and it screams in my mind how very very too late it is to have any input to what goes on around us in this world.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Obviously there is a difference here between a cutting and this technique.

Not really. When you take a cutting you use cells which are not used in the development of embryos (seedlings). Instead, ordinary plant tissue is used. See the "i.e. ordinary plant tissue" part of your quote? It's the same thing.

The result of a cutting and the result of "somatic cloning" is the same. You get a plant genetically identical to the source plant. The advantage of somatic cloning is that you can get a lot more clones because you are only using a few cells for each start.

cacaoprieto.com...


edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
You've never taken a cutting from a plant and started another? That's a clone.


Might be a good idea to read the article first.


The technique called somatic embryogenesis, or SE, was invented to produce high-yielding, disease-resistant seeds.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 

I did read the article. You know that the seeds of the cocao plant are the "product" right? Just as the seeds of coffee trees are the product. These plants are cloned (supposedly) from high-yeild, disease resistant plants. A cutting is a clone. These plants are clones they are genetically identical to the source plants. The only difference is that cuttings are starts from large pieces of the source plant and somatic clones are are started with few cells from the source plant.

Might be a good idea to read this:
cacaoprieto.com...
edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I can see the underlying principle is the same, but it is evident that the reality has panned out very differently. I don't have as much faith in the excuses they give for this. Furthermore, saying this procedure is exactly the same as taking a cutting is actually a rather misleading conflation. These are cells of flowers growing in a sugar solution in a petri dish. That is not the same as a cutting even if the theory is identical. There are vast differences in the execution, and those differences appear to have led to an inferior result. It is simply bad science to say this is the same when there are clearly different factors involved which differentiate the process. For example. You could say that in vitro fertilisation is the same as getting pregnant the old fashioned way, the underlying principles are the same but the differences in the process bring their own possible complications.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


For example. You could say that in vitro fertilisation is the same as getting pregnant the old fashioned way, the underlying principles are the same but the differences in the process bring their own possible complications.

Quite different from in vitro in fact but do you consider children produced by in vitro methods to be "Frankenkids"?
What "complications"?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

If you want to improve something look to nature first.
Plant cloning has been used for hundreds (if not thousands) of years very successfully. You've never taken a cutting from a plant and started another? That's a clone.


Exactly. Banana Tree's are all clones, as Banana tree's are non-fertile hybrids between two different species. And that Hybridization produces those delicious banana's



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Your response is very accurate. If you were a Teacher and I was a Student in your class I would understand your lesson very clearly. You have written a response that has filled in the scientific blanks for any reader who seeks to understand the topic of this thread. Thank you.

Much Peace...



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by winofiend
 


Obviously there is a difference here between a cutting and this technique.

Not really. When you take a cutting you use cells which are not used in the development of embryos (seedlings). Instead, ordinary plant tissue is used. See the "i.e. ordinary plant tissue" part of your quote? It's the same thing.

The result of a cutting and the result of "somatic cloning" is the same. You get a plant genetically identical to the source plant. The advantage of somatic cloning is that you can get a lot more clones because you are only using a few cells for each start.

cacaoprieto.com...


edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I can't argue the science as you are correct. I can however continue to state that a cutting and this technique are different, and will result in different outcomes. The semantics rest on what technique are used. A clone is a clone. Yes. Genetic replication. But someone taking a cutting from someone else, and propagating a full plant, is not the same as this :


The most common cloning method, known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" or simply "nuclear transfer," requires two kinds of cell. One is a somatic cell, which is collected from the animal that is to be cloned (known as the "genetic donor"). A somatic cell is any cell other than a sperm cell or egg cell, and contains the complete DNA, or genetic blueprint, of the animal it came from. For cloning purposes, somatic cells are typically obtained by a routine skin biopsy performed by a veterinarian.

The other kind of cell required for cloning is an egg cell, which is collected from a female of the same species (known as the "egg donor"). In the lab, a scientist extracts and discards the nucleus of the egg cell, which is the part of the cell that contains the egg donor's genes. The scientist then inserts the somatic cell from the genetic donor into the egg and "fuses" the two with electricity. The resulting fused egg contains the genetic donor's DNA.

www.clonesafety.org...

I do understand we're referring to plants and not animals. But it is the same in principle.

Grafting, cloning, or what your average top notch gardener does, is not the same as this. And in my opinion, a sure sign that if we cannot even create stable plants using this technique, we should stay the heck away from Dolly.








posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


But someone taking a cutting from someone else, and propagating a full plant, is not the same as this

Correct. And neither is the method used to clone the cocoa plants. There is no transfer of nuclear material.


I do understand we're referring to plants and not animals. But it is the same in principle.
No. It is completely different. One is simple somatic cell cloning (also know as micropropagation) the other is somatic cell nuclear transfer.


Grafting, cloning, or what your average top notch gardener does, is not the same as this.
Actually, a lot of "top notch" gardeners do do it. But the requirements are a little more sophisticated than your average gardener can manage. Of course, your average gardener isn't trying to produce thousands of clones or plants that are difficult to propagate otherwise.
www.kew.org...


And in my opinion, a sure sign that if we cannot even create stable plants using this technique, we should stay the heck away from Dolly.
It is not the same technique and the plants which result are genetically identical to the source plant. If there is a problem it is in the source plant or the way the plants are raised.

edit on 10/16/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, not only did you reply to me to deny the facts of this form of cloning, They are not refutable, it is as it is.

YOU EDITED YOUR POST and removed any reference to what I looked into.

So forgive me if I took your cite and used it.

man thats low... I really held you in a better light.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by Phage

If you want to improve something look to nature first.
Plant cloning has been used for hundreds (if not thousands) of years very successfully. You've never taken a cutting from a plant and started another? That's a clone.


Exactly. Banana Tree's are all clones, as Banana tree's are non-fertile hybrids between two different species. And that Hybridization produces those delicious banana's


Here we yet again argue nomenclature.

A twin, is a clone if you like. You don't make twins in a lab.

Here we have a lab making clones.

SEE?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Does anyone else get a hangover from eating chocolate? I know if you eat enough in one sitting it will kill you, so I suppose eating a large amount will give you a hangover, a couple of ounces is okay, above that the 'poison' kicks in, and it take about twelve hours for the 'poison' to work its way through.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 



Its a sad story. I do not think its fair however to refer to them as Frakentrees. They have been cloned they are GMOs. That said its not very sensible using a cloned tree like that. Biodiversity works on a genetic level too..



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
It was probably their GMO, they keep saying they were going to do Cocoa, too. They've ruined just about every food and made it impossible to eat, including the small package of organic honey I bought that was disgusting. Cereal that tastes bug spray, couldn't tell if it was the cereal or the honey. Food that makes you sick. Now they're doing the GMO monstrosity to cocoa!

Cloning is cloning, its just like taking a cutting from a plant. GMO is something else. I gather they don't tell people they're creating GMO versions, just go ahead with their experiments, forcing people along.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join