With the climate crisis and diseases threatening one of the world’s most popular fruits, researchers are hoping a breakthrough in breeding techniques could give the Cavendish banana a certain future
I re-read the article to see which bit of pedantry I wanted to focus on.
What they’re doing is creating one type of replacement banana, not a diverse ecosystem of different banana types.
So if THAT banana became susceptible to some disease, they’d have to do this again.
I’m not personally worried too much. There are thousands of types of bananas out there, and so they’ll figure out how to make another one produce a lot that can be transported. Someone will figure it out like these guys are doing now.
But technically, they are working on a single type to replace the Cavendish.
The article mentions trying to make the replacement fertile so they can breed them rather than clone them, which would increase disease resistance, so that’s great. But I know some diseases attack a type of plant - a type of tree, for example - that reproduces normally. So the topic is rather more complicated.
Either way, @patruelis read the article (q.v. another sub-thread comment chain), and so did the people disagreeing with them, but everyone seems to be focusing on different bits and missing each others’ points.
Peter Stedman, Chiquita’s sustainability director, said: “We are not trying to preserve Cavendish. We’re trying to replace Cavendish because we believe at the core of any sustainable farming system is biodiversity and genetic diversity.”
I explained in another reply, but it seems your own reading of the article misses some of the point as well.
They are working on a single replacement. It appears to be fertile, not a clone, but would still be susceptible to a disease that affects a single type. So it would be better, but not diverse.
Your only contribution to the thread as of this reply is two comments asking people if they read the article.
They did, in both cases. Your own understanding of the article is incomplete.
In fairness, I’ve been on both sides of it - missing things from the article and/or pointing out that others missed things. :) So I’m just pointing out what you’ve missed. :)
Scientists? Its easy, have diversity not just 1 kind.
This is a stated goal of the research, according to the article.
I re-read the article to see which bit of pedantry I wanted to focus on.
What they’re doing is creating one type of replacement banana, not a diverse ecosystem of different banana types.
So if THAT banana became susceptible to some disease, they’d have to do this again.
I’m not personally worried too much. There are thousands of types of bananas out there, and so they’ll figure out how to make another one produce a lot that can be transported. Someone will figure it out like these guys are doing now.
But technically, they are working on a single type to replace the Cavendish.
The article mentions trying to make the replacement fertile so they can breed them rather than clone them, which would increase disease resistance, so that’s great. But I know some diseases attack a type of plant - a type of tree, for example - that reproduces normally. So the topic is rather more complicated.
Either way, @patruelis read the article (q.v. another sub-thread comment chain), and so did the people disagreeing with them, but everyone seems to be focusing on different bits and missing each others’ points.
What? No. It literally says…
Peter Stedman, Chiquita’s sustainability director, said: “We are not trying to preserve Cavendish. We’re trying to replace Cavendish because we believe at the core of any sustainable farming system is biodiversity and genetic diversity.”
What are you disagreeing with?
I’m confused.
they figured out the concept of diversity, the peasants rejoice!
yay
What you call the easy bit is actually the hard bit.
Markets love fragility, until they shatter.
Did you forget to read the article?
I explained in another reply, but it seems your own reading of the article misses some of the point as well.
They are working on a single replacement. It appears to be fertile, not a clone, but would still be susceptible to a disease that affects a single type. So it would be better, but not diverse.
Your only contribution to the thread as of this reply is two comments asking people if they read the article.
They did, in both cases. Your own understanding of the article is incomplete.
In fairness, I’ve been on both sides of it - missing things from the article and/or pointing out that others missed things. :) So I’m just pointing out what you’ve missed. :)
No, why? What did I miss?