Comments
Science and experts are everywhere, but the common man has eyes that see.
I heard an employee of the company that has just had an $85 billion taxpayer bailout in America say, “Great, now we can get back to work and do what we do best”.
What’s that mate? Bungle and expertly muddle your way through $85 billion dollars…..Now we have FT with the same tired mantras rolling off the tongue.
We have a square peg tree we are hammering into a round shape hole….we just need bigger hammers.
When will the idea that monoculture is a winner finally fall over?
When will the idea that woodchips are the saviour of Tasmania be dried from the soggy minds of the purveyors of clearfell?Peter I am sure you are a cluey bloke in your field and it was good of you to clear up the GM anomaly, but the fact remains that you are working to a paradigm that is the polished turd…..no matter how much elbow grease you apply.
With no alphabet fore or aft of my name I see what I see.
I see companies making $$$ from woodchips, so deals are done with FT to clear native forest at mind boggling rates and have that diversity replaced by single species plantations that are harvested more often than not as arm wood.
What is that all about?
Doing what they do best?
I think not.
Posted by Dave Groves on 20/09/08 at 04:58 AMSomething that Peter Volker didn’t touch on was the fact that as the nitens grow in their thousands they attract insects that specialise in eating new growth. In a matter of weeks millions of dollars of damage is done without the intervention of powerful aerial delivered insecticides. Our logging overlords have thoughtfully placed these plantations in water catchments so the insecticide run-of can poison the maximum number of Tasmanians.
Something the commercial tree-farming industry doesn’t need is a resident population. It is probably the industry least able to employ workers.Posted by no pulp mill on 20/09/08 at 08:29 AMToday is the International Day Against Monoculture Tree Plantations. The World Rainforest Movement has set up a website on what is happening around the world to rainforests. Included are country reports on transgenic trees (genetically manipulated trees). Here is the link for those who would like to know who is supporting transgenic trees including in Australia. http://www.wrm.org.uy/
Posted by Monika Szigeti on 20/09/08 at 09:35 AMThank you for your information Peter. I have been closely watching the development of the GM eucalyptus. Arborgen are well on the way to trial plantings of cold tolerant eucalyptus in the south east states of the USA. I am surprised you didn’t mention Arborgen Peter. They have recently appointed Rob Van Rossen as their General Manager Australasia operations. Anyone interested in GM trees should have a good look at the Arborgen site below.
http://wwwus.arborgen.com/eucalyptus2.php
You might also like to have a look at the Rubicon Site. Rubicon New Zealand owns 31% of Arborgen.
Arborgen based in Summerville, S.C., and Scion, based in Rotorua, New Zealand, have signed a research and development agreement to focus on the areas of gene discovery and molecular breeding for forest trees.
In addition, ArborGen and one of its investors, New Zealand-based Rubicon, have licensed their pine and eucalyptus Expressed Sequence Tags (EST) DNA databases to further the Scion discovery program and commercial relationship between the two entities.
Continued on next comment:
CathranPosted by Cathran on 20/09/08 at 10:19 AMContinued from last comment:
The joint forces of CSIRO and SCION are now called ENSIS. They have a most interesting website http://www.ensisjv.com/AboutEnsis/tabid/86/Default.aspx
I thought you would have provided the links to some of these sites Peter. It would be a very good idea for readers to peruse this information and make up their own minds as to whether they think Australia will ever be engaged in the planting of GM eucalypts. Of course my background is only in microbiology so I consider myself a lay person in these matters. However we are all entitled to an opinion no matter what our qualifications.
If it is as you say Peter and we never grow a single GM eucalypt in this country how will we ever compete with South America, South Africa and Asia who will have no qualms in embracing these trees. They are already trumpeting the low lignin varieties as being much cheaper to process and those with the inbuilt BT and herbicide resistance gene being easier and cheaper to grow.
A last note of interest. Barbara Wells is the CEO of Arborgen, she was formerly a commercial manager for Monsanto. These companies have more care for the control of crops and trees and therefore their profits than they have for the natural environment. In your cloistered world of academia I doubt you would ever have these thoughts Peter.
Cathran
Posted by Cathran on 20/09/08 at 10:27 AMCathran
1. I see nothing on the ArborGen website that indicates they are using GM technology or producing GM plants. In fact they are clearly using standard breeding techniques.
2. Molecular breeding has become a a standard tool for breeding work in animals and plants. You are confused if you think that equates to GM.
3. Ensis no longer exists. There are lots of dead websites waiting to trip you up.A mixture of error and unsupported opinion isn’t a very good start.
Posted by beady eyes on 20/09/08 at 05:22 PMHi Peter it may be true that we haven’t had trials here yet, but I don’t share your optimism that we will never have them
CSIRO are studying GM eucalyptus that are insecticide resistant.
There have been GM tree trials in the U.S., France and in England. The English trials were for Eucalyptus Regnans that had GM markers in them.
There were trials in Japan where GM eucalypts were grafted onto other seedstock I believe the trials were for salt tolerance.
As I said before there is a lot of work going on and as Cathran said we will get the push because of competition.
You may be able to enlighten us on the issue of Hybridisation of native eucalypts with e.nitens.
Are there any ill effects being noticed form the hybrids growing near current plantations. eg in the Huntsman near Meander hybrids with e.ovata were found. What will be the likely outcome of such crosses.
PetePosted by Pete Godfrey on 20/09/08 at 05:23 PMSorry Beady, the link to Arborgen didn’t work. Try this one and then give me an opinion.
Cheers
CathranPosted by Cathran on 20/09/08 at 08:25 PMI think you are about to get a lesson beady boy. Sick im’ Cathran.
Posted by the teach on 20/09/08 at 09:10 PMPeter Volker may be correct about there being no Genetically Engineered trees in Tasmania.
But he should recognise that there is skepticism about this - in part because CSIRO is very active in field. It seems odd that CSIRO GE constructs are, it seems, being planted in other places on this Earth. If there is any claimed benefit from this technology, would not plantation corporations in Australia feel obliged to follow suit? Lest they be left behind? Lest they lose what they perceive as a competitive advantage?
The other factor is that a great many of us have become intensely cynical about Science and Scientists. I for one frequently sound off about corporate corruption of science. The most egregious examples - for me at any rate - occur with Genetically Modified food crops. All too many scientists in the employ of the biotech corporations have sold their souls. If they have career ambitions, if they want to earn more money, they quickly learn to produce results that conform to the demands of their employer.
Any scientist who steps of of line, who reports the facts - anything that does not suit the corporation is soon out on their ear. Independent scientists who have the courage and determination to present carefully documented facts that are contrary to the biotech industry claims can expect to be pilloried, to lose their tenures- usually brutally delivered by scientists directly or indirectly in the employ of the biotech corporations.
It is an appalling situation, one that has in my eyes dragged science and scientists down to the level of politician or journalist. Of course there are both scientists and journalists who have not compromised their principals. They are deserving of high praise and respect, but all too frequently their integrity comes at a cost.
I make no judgment about Peter Volker - to the best of my knowledge we have not met. But the very fact that he works for FT causes my caution lights to begin flashing. Over the years we have seen how FT deals with whistle blowers. FT employees well know that when they express a public view, it must toe the corporate line.
With FT’s track record, I find it difficult to accept any of their public voices at face value.Posted by Paul de Burgh-Day on 21/09/08 at 09:25 AMThanks Cathran, well done!
How about this statement: “Van Rossen comes to ArborGen with a deep forestry experience. Most recently, at Rayonier, he has been responsible for overseeing three southern forest regions and until December 2007, Tasmania. ...” ?? 3xw.arborgen.com
The ” deep forestry experience”, must be as shallow as it could be for artificial, short rotation tree crops such as Pinus radiata or Eucalyptus regnans plantations down here.
Dear oh dear, as the responsible manager at Rayonier on behalf of TASWOOD GROWERS, Rob would have had a few after hour drinks with Dr. Peter and Bob the boss of Melville Street Hobart, one could expect.
This is an interesting connection in any case. We may look into these leads at a later date.The test of Rob, Dr. Peter and Bob’s qualification can be seen and assessed by mouse click.
How sustainable and “responsible” has this trio managed the publicly owned pine plantation resource over the last decade or more?A simple test question would be fair to be answered Dr. Peter: “Are there as many good quality, mature, optimum size sawlogs available to the Tasmanian sawmills compare to 1999?
If not, how can we trust you and your colleagues that you are good forest and timber managers?
You may be very proud and fond of your PHD, but the test results can be seen in our catchments for decades and centuries to come. Google earth is such a simple, no nonsense tool to visit the coupes in Tasmania from any country and city.Dr. Peter eventually you may realise the fact that the community and the “common man” have eyes that see. The ‘Doctors for Forests’ group and the many other ‘for Forests’ groups stirred your ego and that is an important fact.
Show us the total facts not just the selected science.
Tell us how sustainable Forestry Tasmania’s 2008 carbon sink arguments are, come on give us the full story.Posted by Factfinder on 21/09/08 at 11:10 AMNo consideration of interspecific hybridazation when using species that are not local.
Conserving genepools is an integral part of biodiversity conservation and my guess is no work has been done in Tasmanian to identify any issues vis EE. nitens crossing into populations of EE. globulus, a tree it can hybridize with.
Posted by phill Parsons on 21/09/08 at 11:12 AMCathran (re #8),
Prior to making my comment I had sorted out your error in the ArborGen link and had looked through their website. That’s why I said “I see nothing on the ArborGen website that indicates they are using GM technology or producing GM plants.”
I stand by that comment. I sense you don’t understand the argot used by tree improvement organizations and you’re now jumping to unfounded conclusions.
You’re also getting off topic. It is: are there GM trees being planted in Australia. Peter Volker has made it clear that the answer is “no” and that that position is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The Tasmanian government also has a moratorium on GM crops.
The Break of Day Council has made itself look very silly over this and Tas Times is fast becoming the home of collateral damage for this topic. It’s a repeat of 2004.
Posted by beady eyes on 21/09/08 at 11:51 AMAn interesting fact popped up on Radio National’s “Background Briefing” this morning - about population, eugenics and birth control. It is pertinent to the pressure we will be experiencing to compete with all these molecular monsanto monstrosities. Although we are experiencing population increase, the number of households has increased at twice the rate - the pressure for resources comes not simply from population increase, but from the way in which the resources are used.
The Ford foundation wished for a contraceptive that could be put in the air or the water of the “uneducated”. Perhaps there is some link between the Ford foundation’s support for eugenics and the poisoning of the Indian peasant population by pesticides associated with the foundation’s “green” revolution.
Large scale agro-forestry monoculture (an extension of the “green” revolution) is obviously unsustainable and just part of the entrenched power structure. One day there will be a class of crime against humanity with which to try those like (ex)directors of monsanto. It will be based on breaches of ethical behaviour however, not on understanding GM, cloning or plant breeding techniques.
NCPosted by Neo Conned on 21/09/08 at 11:53 AMDear Peter
I guess I am one of those pesky medicos who “interests” you by commenting on forestry matters. But, no, I do not claim to be an expert on the issues that are discussed in your piece.
It is reasonable for citizens, with or without a forest science background, to voice their concerns about plantation monoculture forestry as the effects of this activity go well beyond how quickly a tree can be made to grow and what quality timber can be produced.
The monoculture plantation industry has many potential impacts on human health and wellbeing and it is appropriate for a health practitioner to see and learn for him/herself about these impacts and communicate in a careful and responsible way to the broader community.
The impacts faced by the human community include water contamination with dangerous and persistent chemicals, the loss of water yield in catchments extensively covered by the thirsty rapidly growing plantation trees, the fire risks associated with conversion of mixed, wet forests into dry and dense plantations and eucalyptus regrowth and the psychological trauma associated with large scale transformation of the landscape and small rural centres.
That this whole conversion process has been extensively funded by the public purse and that there has, so blatently, been a failure to monitor the outcomes of the taxpayer’s “investment” is pretty nasty dose of rubbing salt into the wounds.
Observation is always the starting point in science and it does not take extensive scientific training to be a competent observer.
Such an observer with a dose of common sense and a willingness to pursue the truth is an asset to any society.P.S
I have visited Temma (See previous Tas Times entry) in 2006 and was horried by what I saw.
I have aso been to many clearfells with timberworkers and have been appalled at the waste of quality timber.Dr Frank Nicklason
Posted by frank nicklason on 21/09/08 at 01:07 PMWell well Beady, I do seem to have got under your skin!
I thought you didn’t see anything on the Arborgen site because the site didn’t work - I actually thought you had a cynical sense of humour! How wrong was I!?
I’ll start with the ENSIS site. If ENSIS no longer exists I apologise for wasting your time. The Scion site is definately a live site and the link to ENSIS is still on this site. I would think the research undertaken by ENSIS is still valid as the site was definately live until at least February this year. If CSIRO had their act together they would have removed the site.
I am also sorry if you did not glean from the Arborgen site that they are researching and producing trial plots of GM trees. This may help clarify - a permit given by the USDA for Arborgen to grow trial plots of GM eucalypts. This permit was granted on 27th June 2007.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/06_325111r_ea.pdf
I probably do not understand all the argot used by tree improvement organisations if I did I would have a job in one of them. Given my background I do understand a lot more than you give me credit for. Of course I realize that these companies use conventional genetic breeding techniques, this is their bread and butter.
I agree with Peter that to the best of our knowledge there are no GM trees currently growing in Tasmania or Australia. I disagree with Peter that there will never be attempts to grow GM trees in Australia. Moratoriums can be lifted with changes in governments. This could now be the case in Western Australia. Last year I received a letter from Senator Abetz regarding GM trees in Australia. Here is an extract from that letter:
“While there are no proposals at present, the Australian Government recognises that genetically modified trees offer many potential benefits. some of these benefits include increased cold tolerance in tropical eucalypts, rust resistance in pines, nitrogen fixation in trees for degraded soils and salt tolerance. In the case of commercial forestry plantations, genetically modified trees have the potential to deliver substantial benefits by improving growth rates, pest resistance and wood quality.
I can assure you that any proposal, as with other genetically modified crops such as canola and cotton, would be subject to a thorough risk assessment before a decision was made to proceed with any trial or commercial planting.”
Peter, I am looking forward to your comments on the responses posted on this thread.
Warwick, if you read this post could you please tell us what has happened re ENSIS?
Cheers
CathranPosted by Cathran Bowyer on 21/09/08 at 07:19 PMHi Cathran,
Ensis was an unincorporated joint venture between Scion of New Zealand and CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products that was formed on 1st July 2004. As a CSIRO employee, I was seconded to the joint venture for the period of its existence. The joint venture agreement ceased to operate on 31st December 2007 and all of the CSIRO employees who had been seconded to Ensis went back to being staff of CSIRO in a new division named CSIRO Forest Biosciences on 1st January 2008. Significant collaborations continue on between CSIRO scientists and Scion scientists and I understand that there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the two organisations that said that by mutual agreement the two organisations could conduct work jointly for government and industry clients using Ensis as a trading name. On 1st July 2008, CSIRO broke up CSIRO Forest Biosciences with the staff being reallocated to CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, CSIRO Plant Industry and CSIRO Materials Science and Engineering (the division in which I now work). I don’t know the status of the MoU, or the name Ensis, but I will endeavour to find out for you.
From conversations that I had with my forest science colleagues, my understanding (and all of this is my personal understanding and not an official CSIRO view) of the use of GM eucalypts in Australia is that, while there is research underway to map the genome of species such as globulus and nitens in many laboratories to improve various traits, the only way in which approval could be given for release of any GM native species in Australia under the Gene Technology Act 2000 is if it were first rendered sterile to prevent cross pollination with non-GM individuals.
As for monocultured plantations, my PERSONAL views are very much in accord with those of Dr Nicklason. Any commercial activity carried on to excess to the extent that it causes the stresses on communities that he lists (and the widespread social disapproval that is evident in Tasmanian Times and other media) needs to be reviewed urgently by the government of the day. Like most human activities, monocultured tree plantations when planned and sited appropriately and managed professionally can be an important and legitimate (and indeed vital) commercial activity. In the case of Tasmania, it is fairly evident that the lack of appropriate planning and the unsavoury relationships between the State Government, FT and the island’s largest commercial forestry company has led to a substantial proportion of Tasmanians becoming alarmed at management of most aspects of the State’s forests. This alarm has been heightened by the worst drought in the last 200 years and the fact that no-one knows with any certainty whether or not the drought is a ‘permanent’ consequence of global warming, or whether it is just a very bad drought. In either case, understanding the genomes of plants has a vital role to play in humanity’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions. A better understanding of what makes some individual plants more drought tolerant and disease resistant than others can lead to a world were degraded land that is not used for food production can be planted with a MIX of selectively bred local species that will have a big role to play in absorbing CO2, providing renewable fuels and chemicals, employment for rural communities AND reversing the expansion of most of the world’s deserts.Posted by (Dr) Warwick Raverty on 21/09/08 at 11:37 PMBeady Eyes
Yet another fearless attack dog using the cloak of anonymity.
I have zero respect for your opinion.
Come out, and I might consider what you write.Posted by Paul de Burgh-Day on 22/09/08 at 10:53 AMArborGen not GM?
Check this (some links edited out to enable posting)
Note the use of the words Biotechnology, Transgenic.
And this . . .
ArborGen, a forest biotechnology company . . .Beady Eyes, you are either ill informed, or you have a forked tongue!
8th International Congress of Plant Molecular Biology
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
14:00 – 17:30
Workshop S.3.11FOREST TREE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND GENOMICS
Chair: Professor Om P. Rajora, Senior Canada Research Chair in Forest and Conservation Genomics and Biotechnology, University of New Brunswick, Canada
DOC] ISPMB Forest Tree Workshop – TalksTransgenic tree product development requires multiple competencies, ... control the development of wood properties in Eucalyptus nitens and Radiata pine, ...
http://www.sallyjayconferences.com.au/ispmb2006/docs/ISPMB-S 3.11- Forest Tree Workshop.doc
Forest tree biotechnology for sustained wood productionNarender S. Nehra, Les Pearson, Barbara H. Wells and Maud A. Hinchee.
ArborGen LLC, PO Box 840001, Summerville, South Carolina, 29484, USA.Highly productive plantation forests are expected to provide more than fifty percent of the world’s wood supply in the course of next fifty years. This necessitates the development of technologies that can be used to maximize the production potential of plantation forests to meet the ever increasing demand for wood and wood products while preserving natural forests for the benefits and enjoyment of future generations. Improved forest trees developed through the interface of traditional breeding, varietal forestry and application of biotechnology, together with improved silviculture and plantation management practices, will be required for sustainable wood production from the plantation forests.
In this context, biotechnology is emerging as an important tool in the technology toolbox for enhancing the productivity of plantation forests. The biotechnology research in plant tissue culture, genetic transformation and genomics technology is expanding the forestry industry’s capabilities to identify and utilize new molecular techniques for forest tree improvement.
ArborGen, a forest biotechnology company dedicated to improving the sustainable productivity of plantation forests, is developing plantation forestry species with improved growth, wood properties, and stress tolerance. Transgenic tree product development requires multiple competencies, and ArborGen has made significant progress towards developing the platforms for :
1) testing and selection of elite varieties as a genetic base for transgenic products,
2) commercial scale transformation of elite varieties,
3) discovery of genes for value-added traits,
4) assessment of tree performance in the greenhouse and the field,
5) quality assurance and regulatory safety,
6) commercial level scale up of transgenic tree products, and
7) marketing and public acceptance.The presentation will provide and an overview of the progress and effort in all of these key areas that will enable the development of improved plantation forest trees. Such trees will benefit the forest industry and will also have a positive impact on the environment and the world’s natural forests.
Posted by Paul de Burgh-Day on 22/09/08 at 11:07 AMFurther to the post above, I have established that the MoU is still in operation and Ensis exists as a trading name for collaborative projects conducted jointly by Scion and CSIRO. Details of the activities and services provided by Ensis can be found on the website:
http://www.ensisjv.com/Posted by (Dr) Warwick Raverty on 22/09/08 at 11:35 AMThanks for the info on ENSIS Warwick. It seems a complicated set up. I will email CSIRO and ask them if the site is still live. If they tell me it isn’t I will ask them why it is still up there!
I agree that there will have to be reliable terminator technology before plantings are attempted here. This technology has its own drawbacks. I read that they have only achieved a 95%-98% success rate to date. Some scientists think that this is the highest rate achievable. Let’s hope we never see GM trees planted in Australia.
Cheers
CathranPosted by Cathran Bowyer on 22/09/08 at 02:33 PMForgive my questions below, but I am still confused by the terminology used in many of the websites.
What does “genetic manipulation” specifically mean when is used when referring to biotechnology techniques and what is then “genetic improvement”? How is it achieved? Does it involve well recognised techniques like RNA inhibition and other micro-genetic biotechnology techniques to improve the E nitens used in plantations and produce “genetically elite” cloned seedlings (superior trees for pulp) or is this achieved solely through traditional breeding programmes? Or is it a combination of the above?
And what about companies other than Forestry Tasmania, or are all the trees, eg E nitens, the same?Posted by alison bleaney on 22/09/08 at 06:01 PMThanks so much Warwick, you have made my day. The ENSIS link is exactly the same one I originally refered to. The same site Beady said was a dead site waiting to trip me up.
Now, where is Beady?? For that matter, where is Peter??
Cathran xxx
Posted by Cathran Bowyer on 23/09/08 at 10:01 AMTake all the opportunities you like to make personal attacks, hide behind pseudonyms and completely ignore the fact I answered the question - “Are they GM trees?”
I played al of footy in my youth and it seems a lot of people prefer to play the man, rather than the ball on this web site.
I don’t control what others do in other parts of the world. I can only control what I do and use my knowledge to disseminate some facts and influence decision makers to make wise choices.
If others want to make up fairy tales about GM trees in Australia that is their lookout.
I’m proud of who I am and what I do. Conspiracy theories about any other activities are just that.
Posted by Peter Volker on 23/09/08 at 02:43 PMMy name is Simon Southerton and I am currently leading CSIRO’s molecular forestry research.
It is true that in the past CSIRO has carried out glasshouse research on eucalypts using GM approaches. This was in strictly controlled conditions and field trials were never considered. We stopped this research about 5 years ago largely because we did not see it as an appropriate way to improve eucalypts in the Australian setting.
In the last few years we have been using molecular techniques to study the naturally occurring variation that exists in natural forests. The approach we are taking is akin to the methods used in humans now to identify genes that affect susceptibility to heart disease, cancer etc.
We hope that in the near future these techniques will assist breeders select more accurately and earlier in breeding programs. This will not involve any genetic modification other than what normally occurs during breeding of any species.
Posted by Simon Southerton on 24/09/08 at 01:53 PM24; Peter, did you read the same comments that I just did? “Playing the man”? On the whole it seemed to me that most contributors were discussing the general subject. There was very little in the way of personal attacks (for a largely uncensored site)and most people put their full name.
Posted by Steve on 24/09/08 at 03:17 PMGoodness me Peter (24), you are a bit thin skinned.
Steve (26) is quite right. Only Beady Eyes struck me as a bit unpleasant in his (her?) approach. And the touch of venom was not aimed at you.Thanks Simon (25) for your input - which I accept at face value. I reserve the right to withdraw that if there is hard evidence to the contrary. What you say about CSIRO is indeed good news - something a bit hard to find when it comes to GM!
PaulPosted by Paul de Burgh-Day on 24/09/08 at 10:33 PMThank you Simon for the insight into the CSIRO tree breeding program. It is reassuring to know that CSIRO abandoned GM tree trials. Can you please explain why CSIRO did not think GM an appropriate way to improve eucalypts in the Australian setting?
CSIRO is very pro GM in traditional agricultural research i.e. canola and cotton. I recently attended a talk at which Dr Alan Richardson freely promoted the advantages of GM crops. Why are trees treated differently to crops? In what way is your tree breeding research akin to that of research in humans? Do you think the world’s need for biofuels, I’m thinking cellulosic ethanol here, will change CSIRO’s and the Australian Government’s thinking on GM trees?
Looking forward to your info Simon.
Cheers
CathranPosted by Cathran Bowyer on 25/09/08 at 03:47 PM>FT employees well know that when
>they express a public view, it
>must toe the corporate line.Not true in my experience Paul, though I can only speak for myself.
RalphPosted by Ralph on 25/09/08 at 04:26 PMGood to know there can be exceptions Ralph.
Hard to assess your case without knowing your circumstances.
Care to contact me directly?Posted by Paul de Burgh-Day on 26/09/08 at 11:21 AMRe post 22
“What does “genetic manipulation” specifically mean when is used when referring to biotechnology techniques and what is then “genetic improvement”? How is it achieved? Does it involve well recognised techniques like RNA inhibition and other micro-genetic biotechnology techniques to improve the E nitens used in plantations and produce “genetically elite” cloned seedlings (superior trees for pulp) or is this achieved solely through traditional breeding programmes? Or is it a combination of the above?
And what about companies other than Forestry Tasmania, or are all the trees, eg E nitens, the same? “
Can you help me out with answers please Simon?
Alison BleaneyPosted by alison bleaney on 01/10/08 at 05:03 PM
