Re: [DIYbio] free food

There's no objective measure of anything, ever. That said, if we call
"selective pressure" an objective yardstick, then it's fair enough to
say that the rule-of-thumb holds objectively; most stuff that results in
a significant loss of "fitness" for an organism's environment or niche
without a balancing advantage is either recessive, or weeded out within
a few generations, so "most bad stuff is recessive".

Agriculture is an environment. We might be intelligent actors (citation
needed) but our selective pressures still weed out "bad stuff" for the
niche we force crops to occupy and select for "good stuff". It may be
"subjective" in the sense that it's a human applying selective pressure,
but from a natural selection POV it's as meaningfully selective as
anything else.

And so: the things we value in crops are either fixed by selective
pressure, or if they vary then they *may* be dominant or co-dominant,
whereas the things we *dislike* in crops are *usually recessive*.

..leading into hybrids, hybrid vigour, and the
unfortunate-to-some-advantageous-to-others-but-ultimately-a-side-effect
property of hybrids that they do not breed true.

On 15/01/15 19:43, leaking pen wrote:
> Good and Bad being completely subjective in this instance as well.
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Cathal Garvey
> <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me <mailto:cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me>> wrote:
>
> Well, the results suggest the crops are generally a boon,
> particularly to economically marginalised farmers (plenty of data on
> India for eg), but I'll grant you that the marketers aren't exactly
> poster-children and I'm certainly not a fan of theirs.
>
> As far as Hybrids, it doesn't suit my aesthetics either to have a
> variety that doesn't breed true, but aesthetics be damned: it's a
> rule-of-thumb in genetics that where variation exists in a
> meaningful way, bad things are *usually* recessive, beneficial
> traits are *sometimes* dominant.
>
> That's simple Darwinism|Mendelianism; if bad things are dominant,
> there is more opportunity for the environment to act selectively on
> them, so they are weeded out faster and leave a pool of less
> damaging alleles, whereas if they are recessive, they can hide from
> selection for a generation or two and may contribute benefit in
> terms of unexpected side-effects, etcetera. So, bad traits that are
> dominant usually work on an organism after it has had a chance to
> breed successfully, which is OK in most agricultural contexts.
>
> Meanwhile, if things are beneficial, they tend to drift towards
> fixing in the population absent other pressures, until they hit
> equilibrium. If they are recessive, they'll reach some equilibrium
> with other alleles, if they are dominant they are more likely to
> simply become the norm, which means "variation doesn't exist in a
> meaningful way" and the rule-of-thumb ceases to apply. However, if
> only marginally beneficial on their own, beneficial dominant traits
> can take a long time getting to this point.
>
> Given that bad things are usually recessive and beneficial things
> are not always recessive, and given that breeding creates an
> artificial circumstance of near-total allelic fixation (for a
> defined subset of genes), it stands to reason why Hybrids are so
> popular: when you cross two pure-bred lines, the bad traits that
> limit those lines are usually recessive, and many of the good traits
> are either co-dominant or fully dominant.
>
> In other words, the F1 generation is often awesome. It's not called
> "carefully selected parental lineages vigour", it's called "hybrid
> vigour". The act of hybridising purebreds *often* or even *usually*
> results in very successful offspring.
>
> Now, there are two ways to look at this. One is to accept that
> hybrids are awesome and live with the fact that you can then only
> use them for one generation, because they're heterozygotes at most
> relevant loci. The other way is to look at this as inspiration: if
> it is clear which genes are valuable, then engineering a pure-bred
> line with those advantageous traits becomes the goal.
>
> Right now, we make one or two genetic changes, but with CRISPR and
> next-gen plant engineering, we could hypothetically be making
> "true-breeding hybrids". Hybrids aren't popular because
> manufacturers like DRM'd plants, they're popular because they're
> awesome. So, make them more awesome; make them breed true, and
> (some) farmers will use them.

--
Twitter: @onetruecathal
Phone: +353876363185
miniLock: JjmYYngs7akLZUjkvFkuYdsZ3PyPHSZRBKNm6qTYKZfAM
peerio.com: Use email or phone. Uses above miniLock key.

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/54B81A12.2070108%40cathalgarvey.me.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.