SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Meet the Ground Cherry, a CRISPR Creation That Could Be the Next Strawberry
Before corn was corn, it was a skinny grass that produced only a single row of kernels on each stalk. Long centuries of breeding turned it into a fast-growing plant with big, sweet, kernel-dense ears. In fact, most of the produce we're familiar with now took hundreds of generations to become what they are today. But now scientists, armed with powerful CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology, are whittling down the domestication process to just a few years. Their first experiment is the ground cherry — a formerly wild, now-delicious fruit that has everything it takes to become the next strawberry.
In a paper [DOI: 10.1038/s41477-018-0259-x] [DX] published Monday in the journal Nature Plants, a team of researchers outlined how they used CRISPR to make the ground cherry (Physalis pruinosa) more suitable for agriculture. The sweet, tropical-flavored fruit, about the size of a cherry and nestled in a protective papery husk, is known as an "orphan crop" — one with some desirable characteristics but not enough to make farmers want to grow them. In the wild, the ground cherry is, well, wild — it grows all over the place and has small, sparse fruits that fall off the vine when they're ripe.
But by using CRISPR to edit out its unattractive elements, scientists think it may eventually be found in the produce section of the supermarket. "With some improvements, maybe it could become a specialty fruit crop in the United States and give farmers another fruit crop to grow that's not a tree," Joyce Van Eck, Ph.D., a plant biotechnology expert at the Boyce Thompson Institute and one of the paper's co-authors, tells Inverse.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:44PM (16 children)
The history of food is pretty interesting. It's one of the many aspects of history that traditional high school history classes neglect. They're heavily warped towards a sort of individualistic, heroic view, which, to be fair, is merely a reflection on what ancient civilizations themselves tended to record. Recorded history is mostly about who was king or sometimes general, and what wars he fought, as if such decisions were solely his to make. But in fact, rulers did a lot more "riding the wave", so to speak, than making arbitrary calls over war and peace. If the people were going hungry, maybe feeling cramped and crowded, feeling like there wasn't enough room for everyone, the government had to do something, and a common out was to channel that into action against "enemies", or they'd be facing a revolution.
Food has everything to do with why civilization was so slow to spread, why the Romans conquered England but not Scotland, which would seem more logical than building a wall, and why the Bronze Age civilizations pretty much stuck to a few major river valleys. For instance, why didn't the Indus Valley Civilization lead to a Ganges Valley Civilization right away?
Wheat is one of the oldest crops, going back to the New Stone Age. As I recall, China domesticated apples with the technique of grafting, sometime in classical antiquity (500 BC to 500 AD). The trouble with apples is that there is no guarantee the seeds of a sweet apple would sprout a tree that would grow more sweet apples. Grafting bypasses that problem. Strawberries were not fully domesticated until the Middle Ages, with the innovation of using nets to keep the birds away.
We're at the beginnings of a revolution in food production. We have a whole lot of recently gained knowledge and techniques that we have only just started using in the last century or so. Crap about "Frankenfoods" is dying down. I'd love to try a ground cherry once they're ready. I must admit though, that there's all kinds of traditional food I have never tried. Just walk into a Latino grocery, and I'll see all kinds of stuff in the produce section that I barely knew existed. Same with an Asian grocery.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:48PM
Once they're ready? They're ready now: https://www.humeseeds.com/grndchry.html [humeseeds.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @07:28PM
Also interesting to learn that sugar used to be considered a drug. It wasn't even considered relevant to fasting:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-1429-1_6 [springer.com]
Also, how all our food is dropping in mineral content since the soil has been so overused and people are excreting the minerals far away from the farms:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221451411500121X [sciencedirect.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:07PM (6 children)
If by that you mean GMO, then no that is not true. Being against GMO isn't anti-science as nearly as much as it is anti-corporate and anti-corruption. You need to give us a reason to trust these people, especially since we now live in an environment with a compromised EPA. They're getting rid of all kinds of limits that keep mercury and other contaminants out of our bodies. The "shackles" are being throw-off by corporations, and consumer protections are going to suffer greatly. We won the fight against corporations with lead in gasoline, but we're losing the fight WRT to other problem chemicals like the ones found in RoundUp. Glyphosphate IIRC.
Organic non-GMO products are in fact exploding. Same with gluten-free, which surprised me. The best features of organic and non-GMO?
As far as that new cherry is concerned, you can have it all. I inherently do not trust its safety because I no longer trust the scientists, and certainly not the shareholders.
It's not "FrankenFood" but brand new food created by avaricious assholes. Consumer beware.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:24PM (3 children)
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:53PM (2 children)
Maybe on #2 WRT to fertilizers, maybe. There different methods of farming that can address that. The pesticide run-off, and fertilizer run-off from Walmart parking lots is not a myth. If you're saying there are no consequences from pesticide run-off, then who is trying to sell who a bridge again?
On #1, you're just plain wrong. Neonicotinoids is causing a major problem with our food because we do in fact rely on bees to survive, along with other pollinating insects. Europe is observing a massive decline in insect species, especially moths, butterflys, etc. Are you trying to claim that none of these insecticides are responsible for any environmental problems?
On #4, you're just plain wrong, again. By not purchasing non-organic GMO products from Big Ag, and instead purchasing from local Farmers Markets and local produce in grocery stores, you are in fact giving power back to your local farmers. With the Farmers Market that is guaranteed, albeit with trust that they are organic. Some of the bigger local farms you may have a somewhat of a point, but you seem to think they'are all the same. They're not. Nowhere is that more true than my purchase of eggs directly in my own neighborhood from a neighbor.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EvilSS on Tuesday October 02 2018, @09:12PM (1 child)
#2 I never said runoff is of no consequence. But if you think organic farms don't use fertilizers, and that they don't run off and cause problems (as you basically stated in your original post) you are sadly mistaken. Organic fertilizers can cause the same runoff issues as regular fertilizers.
#4 Organics is a $65 Billion per year industry, growing at a rate of 5-7% per year. The top 3 organic producers? WhiteWave Foods Company, Hain Celestial Group, and General Mills. All huge companies. WhiteWave owns the largest producer of organic greens in the US. 50,000 acres. So yes, you are absolutely feeding the big ag machine. The "local farmers" is a fucking myth for 90% of the organic produce out there. Including many "farmers markets" sellers who source most of the stuff they sell from big distributors 2nds, the stuff not pretty enough to go to major markets.
You remind me of the people who deride big pharma and their drugs, then buy supplements, most produced by big pharma companies.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday October 03 2018, @01:24AM
Uh huh. I don't think we've been to the same farmers markets. If it was all non-viable produce from Big Ag, then why does it NOT look like non-viable produce from Big Ag? Why do they look like huge delicious apples? Big bundles of Kale? Big strawberries?
The produce quality isn't in question, and ugly veggies and fruits still have the same nutrition. Meaning, why would Big Ag waste them when applesauce looks the same from an ugly apple? Almost all fruit and veggies fall into that category. You can make pressings out of any of those, and then sell them at a premium in Whole Foods. I would indeed be surprised if people were buying the ugly fruits and veggies to peddle to other people as-is, instead of making a processed food product of some kind.
Also, you could get to know some farmers. I'm not saying there is zero corruption in all of them, but many I've bought from are indeed local and live in my county. You can visit many of the farms, with some of them having their own "factory outlet" style stores selling produce that literally was picked 200 feet away.
You can't convince me that Farmers Markets are bullshit when I can visually see the evidence that they are not. Additionally, there are expensive certification programs (that not all participate in because of the expense) and those certify the organic and non-GMO nature of their crops and farming methods.
I can see your point about organic produce going the way of Big Ag, but you've failed to convince me that Farmer's Markets are the equivalent. Although I can only speak for the Farmer's Markets that I've been to in Northern California, and the ones other family members frequent in Nevada and Texas.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:14PM (1 child)
When climate change deniers say stuff like this they are pilloried. What makes this different?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday October 03 2018, @01:46AM
I would say those deniers have been pilloried when they're clearly shills for corporations. Show me a true scientist performing real research (not junk science funded by Big Oil), that puts forth a valid argument, with data and reproducible results, and is PILLORIED, and I will agree that an injustice was performed. However, most of the time, the majority of people screaming the loudest, also strangely have the most to lose financially. I think it's justified pillory when you're a billionaire arguing against clean air and water rules, and you form a quasi-scientific foundation with conclusions in hand looking for scientists to work backwards from that. Unjustified when you're a scientist, not using Big Oil money, having produced legitimate science and results that can be reviewed scientifically. Like I said though, point me to that science. I will forever be skeptical of research that absolves very rich monied interests of expensive responsibility, when said monied interests fund and operate said research. Human nature is a bitch, but only the foolish would forget that.
Additionally, there is some room for argument in Climate Science. What fucking room is there for argument when Big Pharma is caught playing math games with people's lives? You seem to act like corporations haven't been caught being highly reckless with consumer safety in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. When presented with research that might put profits at risk, completely coincidentally, those corporations fight back very hard with their own science, that completely coincidentally, challenges the science proving the product is bad for us. Science related to lead when we are arguing about lead in the environment and hugely rich monied interests are putting lead into the environment. Repeat with Tobacco, etc.
I said I don't trust the scientists, I didn't say I didn't trust science itself. Scientists are human after all, which means they suffer from the same sociopathic drawbacks due to money and resources that everyone apparently does. That includes performing research where the safety may be questionable, but a non-scientist gets involved, puts pressure on the scientists (or engineers), and the product gets pushed through to the market anyways.
You're damn right I don't trust scientists working for Big Ag trying to bring a new product to market. There is hardly any science in it, and pretty much 99.99999999999% executive and shareholder avarice that substitutes knowledge based decision making with wallet based decision making. The latter has very few rules, the primary being: Money = Good = Right.
In such an environment why should I be pilloried for daring to have mistrust in such groups of individuals proven to have bad behavior? For the record, I believe man has affected the environment and that climate science is telling us to change soon. I also believe that a lot of supporting research may be questionable, that some of it has been faked, and there is a grab for power inside the climate science movement.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:18PM (5 children)
My concern about most GMO foods is that their genes aren't modified to benefit the people who eat them, but so that Monsanto can move RoundUp.
RoundUp kills _every_ form of plant life that it comes into contact with other than that grown from RoundUp-Ready seed such as 90% of America's soy and corn.
Real soil is quite complex; plants need more than just potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen. Chemical fertilizer all by itself causes significant trouble in that it often causes algae bloom in waterways that consumes all the oxygen, thereby killing all the fish.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @10:27PM (1 child)
Fuck off, moron. RoundUp does not kill every form of plant life. Get an education you stupid cunt.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @01:26PM
Wow, I've never looked at it from that angle before. Thanks, you've convinced me!
(Score: 5, Touché) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:12PM (2 children)
I'm sorry, this is incorrect. I've hacked out far too much pigweed and crabgrass to let that BS pass unchallenged.
If the greenies would have a brief moment of clarity they'd take a look at the real impact of no-till farming that Glyphosphate has enabled. The farms that switched to no-till in the 90s have double-digit organic matter percentages in their soil now. That's good enough to grow vegetables in. Plowpans that needed industrial equipment to break up are just gone. It's a no-shit honest to god miracle.
No-till with herbicides is orders of magnitude better than flipping over the dirt with a moldboard plow and letting it erode all winter long. That's the "old fashioned way" that people want us to go back to. If you understand even a modicum of soil science you'll get why that is a very bad thing. If you hate Bayer, that's fine. I get that. Go invent an alternative herbicides then. Don't FUD away one of the best technologies of the 20th century because you don't like them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @01:36PM (1 child)
I'm a scientist, and I will admit up front that I am one who doesn't understand even a modicum of soil science. What's the time for the soil organic matter to reach steady state using the "old fashioned" method. Are we talking about needing to turn the soil for a few seasons before the soil hits double-digit organic matter whereas with Roundup you can do it in one or two? Once you've achieved the level of organic matter in the soil you need, does it matter which method you use from there on out? If not, then I would think the old fashioned way is better long-term because it doesn't promote reliance on monocultures. Does Roundup have an adverse affect on the other parts of soil chemistry that are important, such as the microflora?
(Score: 1) by MindEscapes on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:14PM
Turning large amounts of soil over as the old furrow plows do leads to massive soil erosion. The good soil blows away, gets washed away by rain and simply is no more. It isn't about the time it takes to build up organic reserve.
The concepts behind no till is to leave the weeds grow in place through the "off season", don't break up the soil and their roots which will prevent the erosion, spray them just before planting with a seed drill (shoots seeds to predetermined depth into a small gap made in the soil), and allow the crop plant roots to take hold and continue holding the soil in place. Vastly reduced soil erosion and therefore has a chance to increase organic matter levels over time.
Or so I understand it to be.
Need a break? mindescapes.net may be for you!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 02 2018, @08:51PM
The revolution we need is Marsberries.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end