The first is an analysis in the change of wild goldenrod today vs a saved sample from the Smithsonian sample from 1842.
The other experiments pumped extra carbon dioxide into rice crops to simulate rising global CO2 levels and it also noticed a percentage decrease in nutrient levels in the rice.
Got around to watching the video. I have read most of the papers they are referencing. A major issue with all of them is they do not understand how plant breeding and varietal selection functions with market forces. They are making a false projections from the data. To be fair, this information is not in the published research as private breeding efforts are doing most of the effort globally.
The key information they are missing is the concept of market slots or “slotting”. This is the breeding efforts to create varieties that can match market requirements under different growing conditions. Farmers don’t get paid on the total yield but marketable yield. So farmers plant many different varieties through the season that all end up looking similar in the market. Even the third world countries have these market requirements and change their varieties through the season.
Breeding for a slot is usually breeding to regulate growth rates.
A good example is cantaloupes. A variety planted the first of January in southern California or Texas will be ready to harvest around 120-130 days later. Put the same variety in Honduras, and it will be ready in 55 days, be twice the size and have less sugar, flavor and nutritional value. For Honduras they use very slow developing varieties that take 65 days to develop there.
What about third world countries? Take a wild guess where the genetics that professional breeders use mostly come from: Local landraces developed by the farmers to meet their market needs. All it takes is the farmer keeping the plants that best fits their market and they are selecting for different growth rates by default.
This Veritasium video basically comes to the same conclusion as OP and they seem to discuss a couple of situations that are fairly scientific and don’t require different types of testing over time.
The first is an analysis in the change of wild goldenrod today vs a saved sample from the Smithsonian sample from 1842.
The other experiments pumped extra carbon dioxide into rice crops to simulate rising global CO2 levels and it also noticed a percentage decrease in nutrient levels in the rice.
Got around to watching the video. I have read most of the papers they are referencing. A major issue with all of them is they do not understand how plant breeding and varietal selection functions with market forces. They are making a false projections from the data. To be fair, this information is not in the published research as private breeding efforts are doing most of the effort globally.
The key information they are missing is the concept of market slots or “slotting”. This is the breeding efforts to create varieties that can match market requirements under different growing conditions. Farmers don’t get paid on the total yield but marketable yield. So farmers plant many different varieties through the season that all end up looking similar in the market. Even the third world countries have these market requirements and change their varieties through the season.
Breeding for a slot is usually breeding to regulate growth rates.
A good example is cantaloupes. A variety planted the first of January in southern California or Texas will be ready to harvest around 120-130 days later. Put the same variety in Honduras, and it will be ready in 55 days, be twice the size and have less sugar, flavor and nutritional value. For Honduras they use very slow developing varieties that take 65 days to develop there.
What about third world countries? Take a wild guess where the genetics that professional breeders use mostly come from: Local landraces developed by the farmers to meet their market needs. All it takes is the farmer keeping the plants that best fits their market and they are selecting for different growth rates by default.