รายงาน เรื่อง “Mobilizing Science to Break Yield Barrier & The Future of Food: Scenario for 2050”

The full details may need to plug in later???

So far I will plug in only some pages below:

Full hard printed copy already send to Dr. Pramote.

รายงาน

เรื่อง “Mobilizing Science to Break Yield Barrier & The Future of Food: Scenario for 2050”

เสนอ

ดร. ปราโมทย์ สฤษดิ์นิรันดร์

จัดทำโดย

นาย สุพัตร์ ฟ้ารุ่งสาง <[email protected] >

รหัสนิสิต 5327100146

ภาคเรียนที่ ๑ ปีการศึกษา ๒๕๕๓

รายงานเล่มนี้เป็นส่วนหนึ่งของวิชา Perspectives in Research & Devel.in Agri.Sys. (02047593)

INTRODUCTION

Two assigned papers concern about sufficient food for the future. In the first paper it suppose to break the yield barriers and in the second paper it suppose to models and figure to serve the human in the future with healty food.

Both papers did not get obvious solutions on basis of FTA and carbon credit but it was proven to be true that those two serious problems concern to all subjects exist in this world. In my opinion, those two factors are one of threshold or limiting factor in Reverse Threshold Model Theory (RTMT).

On the same mother nature, different scientist has there own methods to explain to what it was happen. Some explainations even if they are contradict to each others but it was proven to be both correct. However, in those two assigned papers, it was most likely they jump to the wrong conclusion. Because both papers restrict themselves under limitted shell of knowledges namely conventional scientifics methods.

The first paper jump to the wrong conclusion that yield barrier must be broken. That is one track way of thought. The second paper also narrow down their choice only to healthy food and restricted models they assumed. The thruth is mother nature did not totally fall in the way they assumed.

Our objective for this analysis are 1. to provide background knowledges about Free Trade Area (FTA) and carbonFootprinting plus carbon credit. 2. to provide way of thought for the same problems under another shell namely “Research and Development”

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two papers were given to be read and analyse since at the beginning of the class and the dead line was delayed to the end of semister. Students have to collect information on their own choice to have sufficient information to support or argue with the both papers. After reading all information, analysis on the two objective have to be concluded with supported scientific reasons. Reference pattern is not state so I prefer to give the whole data I have and summary of source of reference at the end without cross reference to the context I will give later.

RESULTS

After several times reading and analysing by comparing to data that I collect myself and with 56 years of experience working as a scientist , I found that both papers jump to the wrong conclusion and mis-understand the true mother nature.

The second paper try to convince reader by giving a lot of fact and figure from several source, e.g. Agricultural Knowledges Science and Technology (AKST), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Assessment of Agricultural Scientific and Technology for Development (IAASTD) and etc. But those sources of information gave only part of the truth and indexes with the wrong key performance in the way called “systemic thinking”. In the true mother nature, system they assumed did not exist.

The first paper try to convince us by giving evidence trace back to Darvin in 1859 up to recent single nucliotide polomorphism (SNP) technology today. And jump to the wrong concentrations that yield barriers can be broken genetically only. I disagree with this conclusion using His Majesty the King principal of Self Sufficient Economy (SSE) philosophy and Reverse Threshold Model Theory (RTMT).

DISCUSSIONS

In the first paper, it suppose that transfering plants to C4 photosynthesis will lead to physiological maxima. By this way, it will affect to not only carbon credit concept but also ecology of our world. It may decrease CO2 emission but proportion of plants in this world will be changed and lead to ecological changed. We do not know those effect yet but in the past it was proven that when the first limiting factor was swept out then the second limiting factor will take place to be the next first limiting factor and most time it always has biger undesirable effect. For example, we get rid off several diseases but now it was replaced by new severe diseases namely HIV, cancer, avien flu, etc.

It was cited that Monsanto, in 2008, has confirmed that they can twice their yield in 2030. I suppose it will be done using monoclonal F1 hybrid plants. In view of carbon credit , it may reduce carbon emission because those F1 hybrid may have efficient utilization of carbon in the air and cause positive effect to global warming. But it will increase chance for disease to destroy thos crops in much higher effect because diversity of genetic materials was reduced. Also, ecosystem was surely negatively changed. We still don't know total effect of both side but in the past, it always be proven that single track way of thought always wrong. For example, in building the dam we never think it can change the sea ecology until today we found that building the dam has negative effect more than positive effect. I presume that the same will happen to Monsanto way of thought.

It also cited that Cliff Weil (2008) using breeding program on basis of diversity of germ plasm but the rate at this moment come to the point of diminishing returns. They jump to this wrong conclusion because they narrow the plants and animals down to only economics plants and animals. There are still contain with abundance among organism that is not defined under economics important. True reasons that decrease genetics variation in economics plants and animals come from population genetics principal of selection. On path way of selection, several undesirable genes were converged to zero in variation.

The author of the first paper suggest that precision phenotyping also will be a key stone of the solution. They suggest to have more precise measurement. This was opposite to RTMT way of thought. Phenotypes always compose of random errors so it was useless to measure it precisely. The correct solution is to get rid off those random error and get the true genotype hidden. New technique that can have higher efficient in prediction of true genotype was given by Faarungsang since 1995. Unfortunately it did not published in higher impact fator journals. It does not matter, because now under RTMT, 100% of random errors can be swept out and Faarungsang plan to published it in Nature that have the highest impact factor of the world.

It was claimed that golden rice is a good example of successful application of GMO plant. But, those are one of narrowed mind thinking. It was useless to produce golden rice because it was cheaper to produce carotine in pumpkin. To throw one pumpkin in rice cooker will be higher in efficiency in cooking with pure golden rice. Human never eat pure rice as their food. They always eating rice with source of protein unless they want to be mal nutrition with lack of protein.

I agree with one sentence given in the first paper that learning from the past should help us enhance yield in the future. But the sum of paper never think that way but stuborn to introduced bad technology that was proven to be wrong.

At the end of he first paper, it cited Bill Gates words about new business model called “Creative capitalism” with motivation to help human. But in real life, Bill Gates was proven to be faied in doing so. He buy netscape to freeze it progress to force its slave to use only bad browser namely IE.

On the last sentence of the first paper, it gave a woderful words “to answer a question , the question must first be asked” . So, my question to him is : “Are you sure to narrow down genetics variation by producing economic crops and animals are the solution?” My answer is “NO. It was wrong to apply sytematic thinking to solve those problem”. Because solving only yield problem will always lead to much more serious problem in the future.

For paper number 2, it gave mostly faked figures from several respectable sources

but I did not trust on those source any more because I see that they are all one track mined person way of thinking with wrong key performance index. Those organization always be proven to blind us with part of true figures but behind those figures it was simply a lie to make them to get maximum profit not to help the world to utilise resource wisely at all. At this moment they produce ethanol fron sugar cane instead off produce it for food to the poor in the third world countries including Thailand.

Concerning FTA discussions, both papers gave no explicit sentences to be cited but what they hide to us is to force all poor countries to swallow those ugly law on FTA on reasons that if you cannot produce it efficiently while not let higher technological countries to produce it and spread it to your countries without tax.

They forget to think globally that even Thailand cannot beat Australia and New Zealand on milk production but Thailand need to produce milk on their own because it has so many poor to earn their money from milk production. When it has economics crisis then it was agriculture who play important role in letting the poor to have place to work instead off becoming unemployed persons as it was happen in several states in USA at this time.

The second objective of this report is to give another way of thought using Research and Development (R&D) mind to solve the same problems cited in the both papers.

For R&D minded scientist, it will not only to solve problem by scientific systematic system but they have to concern on the following issue 1. sustainability, 2. global effects, 3. SSE, 4. Ecology, 5. Social effect, and etc.

The major problems stated in both papers are 1. there will lack off food for 9000 million persons in 2050. 2. new genetics techniques are the last hope to have sufficient food in 2050. For R&D minded scientist, what the two papers said is only part of the truth to frighten us to swallow their rules and becoming their slave as Bill Gates already did and Faarungsang did already gave R&D solution by making android and SSS philosophy. It was true that food may not sufficient to feed 9000 million persons. But in both papers it never say another part of the truth that we have more than 9000 million pigs and chicken to eat the same food that we eat. Why not feed corn and sy bean directly to human instead off feeding them indirectly to animals? They did not told us to produce 1 tank of ethanol to feed a truck to drive across USA can have equally enegy for the poor in Thailand for a year but they still produce ethanol for money instead of feeding sugar directly to human.

Both papers never mention the different in water consumption in the rich tourist in Thailand compared to water consumption among the poor TH farmers. Ghandi the great was said “We have sufficient resource to feed the whole world but we never have sufficient food for only one greedy person”. The true reason is we did not lack of food. What we lack is equal in opportunity to comsume the food.

CONCLUSIONS

Both papers gave us only part of the truth and hide several information benefit to solve the same problem in R&D way of thought. The true mother nature never follow their way of thought but it was them who have to adapt their way of thought to fit to the true mother nature. The reason our world was won because it allow bad scientist to give theirs narrow solutions that destroyed our mother nature to alive and being respect on honoring them to have a Nobel prize and forget the true scientist that gave the correct solution to our world namely “unsung hero” who solved Y2k problems and gave us solution to get rid off BillGates slavery under open source philosophy and SSE from HMJ the King.