Hi Jennifer,
Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) afflicts many people around the world, especially in developing countries. Some of the adverse health outcomes of VAD include increased mortality, night blindness, corneal scars, blindness and measles among children, as well as night blindness among pregnant and lactating women. In a bid to reduce VAD-related diseases, rice plants were engineered to produce higher levels of beta-carotene in the endosperms or grains, and the result of this effort is Golden Rice 2. In an article in Nature Biotechnology, Alexander Stein and colleagues from the University of Hohenheim, Germany and Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research, India, presented a new methodology for assessing the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Golden Rice 2 in India.
Read the complete blog post at http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/assessing-benefits-of-golden-rice-2.html
Cheers, David Tribe
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yay for Golden Rice!!!
David, you mentioned something on another blog about developing countries having to pay millions in regulatory fees to use GM crops. Is this as a result of their own laws or international trade laws (or something else entirely)? Who gets the millions? Didn’t understand your point.
The real example I was thinking of is where a particular developing country develops their own crop but is now faced with expensive regulatory costs for preregistration trials and tests (such as nutritional and safety tests, molecular fingerprinting, data dossiers and the like) to meet regulatory standards in their own country and overseas. Remember if the crop is to be exported (or event used to feed animals for export) it has to meet developed country standards.
The service companies and bodies doing the tests get the fees. I’m not talkin’ bribes Im talkin’ incurred costs. The developing institution private or public has to meet these costs.
It turns out that regulatory costs are one of the main cost factors in “GM ” crop development.
For instance Ingo Portykus (in a powerpont presentation he just sent me) lists the regulatory hurdles for Golden Rice as follows:
Deletion of selectable marker: unjustified 2 years
Screening for streamlined integration: unjustified 2 years
Screening for regulatory clean events: unjustified 2 years
Protection against liability problems: justified 1 year
Transboundary movement of seeds: unjustified 2 years
Obligatory sequence greenhouse-field: unjustified 1 year
Permission for working in the field: unjustified 2 years
Requirement for one-event selection: unjustified 2 years
Experiments for the regulatory dosier: only partly justified 4 years
Deregulation procedure: only partly justified 1 year
(And remember delay of use of Golden Rice by 1 year costs a minimum of 10950 lives! according to Ingo.)
Work for regulatory dossier requires a minimum of six years for an entire team of specialists and a financial investment of ca. USD 20 million.
So I repeat my question: who is responsible for any adverse effects of these hurdles?
Detribe,
you are in good company promoting Gold Rice, Patrick Moore co- founder of Greenpeace and now heading up Green Spirit has this to say about Golden rice:
“Enriched with Vitamin A, Golden Rice could prevent blindness in 500,000 children per year in Asia and Africa if activists would stop blocking its introduction.”
However this outstanding Environmentalist also lamented why the product wasn’t being used:
“We’re faced with environmental policies that ignore science and result in increased risk to human health and ecology. To borrow from the vernacular, how sick is that?”
to read the full article from Moore: http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/D107.cfm
Cinders thanks for the support.
I’ve just updated GMO Pundit with some diagrams showing the extent of (random) genetic change tolerated in traditional breeding, and which largely unregulated.
The diagrams are kindly supplied by Ingo Potrykus.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/natural-gmos-part-28-conventional.html
Plant chromosomes (barley for instance) are being scrambled all the time in fields, in fact this scrambling often generates new and useful biodiverity, as has been documented in many scietific articles.
Whose responsible for regulatory hurdles?
Whoever puts them in place.
I for one am not a fan of trade barriers and quite like the idea of free trade helping developing countries. Such barriers impact on the non-GMO produce as well, of course.
You won’t find me disagreeing with you that there are far too many silly rules governing the introduction of GMOs.
Also, where’d the $20 million figure come from. According to the supp. information in the paper, the total reg. AND development cost in India are between $6.2 and $11.1 million (not the 20 million you are claiming – am I missing something?) – see table 4. That also includes large-scale health information programmes to actually get people to eat the stuff.
Could you fill us in on what some of the reg. requirements actually mean:
Screening for streamlined integration: unjustified 2 years
Screening for regulatory clean events: unjustified 2 years
Transboundary movement of seeds: unjustified 2 years
Obligatory sequence greenhouse-field: unjustified 1 year
Requirement for one-event selection: unjustified 2 years
What do you mean by ‘plant chromosomes are being scrambled in the field’ all the time? Most of the useful variation in barley originates in landraces.
Barley chromosomes remain much the same for generation to generation in the field, and if there is any mutation, it’s highly unlikely to produce anything positive. Induced mutation through somaclonal variation has been tried as a complement to breeding programmes and got nowhere.
Nexus some trade barriers protect poor countries. Trade barriers aren’t a b&w issue and they can manifest in different forms. eg a tariff, a quota or a ban may be used to limit or prevent dumping but Washington consensus policies & WTO restrictions have eroded the ability of many poor countries to manage their own trade barriers in their national interest.
Also note that some EU bilateral trade agreements do give preferential favourable treatment to assist developing countries agric (that’s a stand alone comment, I’m not defending EU agric subsidies). Rapid trade liberalisation has in some instances deepened poverty and eroded agric self-sufficiency and national sovereignty. Dismantling trade barriers for any country should be carefully staged with economic development and local economic resilience.
The developing countries that have benefited the most from free trade (ie the poster children who are often misrepresented) are those who carefully co-ordinated export-oriented economic and social development and staged their degree of participation in international trade.
RE
Also, where’d the $20 million figure come from. According to the supp. information in the paper, the total reg. AND development cost in India are between $6.2 and $11.1 million (not the 20 million you are claiming – am I missing something?) – see table 4. That also includes large-scale health information programmes to actually get people to eat the stuff.
Could you fill us in on what some of the reg. requirements actually mean:
Screening for streamlined integration: unjustified 2 years GENETIC EVENTS IN CONSTRUCTION OFTEN HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DNA, BUT EXTRA dnA IN TRADITIONAL WIDE CROSSES BREEDING IS SUBSTANTIAL AND IGNORED
EG Young and Tanksley. 1989. RFLP analysis of the size of chromosomal segments retained around the Tm-2 locus of tomato during backcross breeding. Theor. Appl. Genet. 77:353-359
Screening for regulatory clean events: unjustified 2 years
Transboundary movement of seeds: unjustified 2 years BUREAUCRATIC DELAYS
Obligatory sequence greenhouse-field: unjustified 1 year EXTRA FIELD TRAILS DEMANDED BY REGULATOR ABOVE WHAT INGO JUDGES AS APPROPRIATE
Requirement for one-event selection: unjustified 2 years RESTRICTION ON CONSTRUCTIONS TO FIT WITH REGULATORY BURDEN
They arn’t my claims, I’m quoting Ingo’s comments out of his presentation slides. They don’t directly relate to the paper and I take them to include costs incurred outside India. As far a detailed description of these steps we have to ask Ingo but Ive put my remarks against them in CAPS above.
My point is that these are specific judgements of someone who has been through the regulatory hurdles of how big they are, I’m not inventing hurdles out of thin air, and my further point is that they are significant hurdles – adding up to many years ( ~5 years extra delay over sensible timetable, and tens of millions of dollars).
This is the regulatory burden that is currently killing public and local private agbiotech in the developing world, BUT we both agree that promotion of better seeds for struggling farmers is a worthy objective.
RE barley land races Nexus I beg to disagree.
There is abundant evidence to argue that barley land races have de novel genetic variation occuring in them. There are tens of thousands of mobile DNAs (called BARE-1) in barley, many active in movement, and major differences in their number are (THOUSANDS of different insertion events involved) are correlated with ecological adaptation.
Kalendar et al., 2000 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 6603–6607.
see also
Rasmussen, D.C., and R.L. Phillips. 1997. Plant breeding progress and genetic diversity from de novo variation and elevated epistasis. Crop Sci. 37:303-310
Wei F, Wing RA, Wise RP. Genome dynamics and evolution of the Mla (powdery mildew) resistance locus in barley.Plant Cell. 2002 Aug;14(8):1903-17.
Soleimani VD, Baum BR, Johnson DA. Quantification of the retrotransposon BARE-1 reveals the dynamic nature of the barley genome. Genome. 2006 Apr;49(4):389-96.
Vicient CM, Kalendar R, Schulman AH. Variability, recombination, and mosaic evolution of the barley BARE-1 retrotransposon. J Mol Evol. 2005 Sep;61(3):275-91. Epub 2005 Jul 18.
Re whether new genetic events occur in crops already in the field, what about the Wp mutation naturally created in 1987?
see
The wp mutation of Glycine max carries a gene-fragment-rich transposon of the CACTA superfamily.
The 5.7-kb insertion in wp represents a novel transposable element (termed Tgm-Express1) with inverted repeats closely related to those of other Tgms (transposable-like elements, G. max) but distinct in several characteristics, including the lack of subterminal inverted repeats.
More significantly, Tgm-Express1 contains four truncated cellular genes from the soybean genome, resembling the Pack-MULEs (Mutator-like transposable elements) found in maize (Zea mays), rice (Oryza sativa), and Arabidopsis thaliana and the Helitrons of maize. The presence of the Tgm-Express1 element causing the wp mutation, as well as a second Tgm-Express2 element elsewhere in the soybean genome, extends the ability to acquire and transport host DNA segments to the CACTA family of elements, which includes both Tgm and the prototypical maize Spm/En.
Zabala & Vodkin (2005) Plant Cell 17:2619-2632
OK, this is OT but….
I did say that most of the useful variation in barley occurs in landraces. It’s the same with most crops. Landraces are old and have had some time to collect mutations. If you fingerprint progeny from two double-haploid parents or clones(so the only difference you will see is transposition and not recombination) and compare to the parents using AFLPs or SSRs, for example – you don’t see a whole lot of differences. Plants have well-evolved systems to prevent genomic instability. They not perfect (mutations do happen) but they’re good.
I’m also well aware of transposable elements as I work with transposon-tagged barley populations. I’ve yet to see an “improved” phenotype in thousands of lines (We use them for gene discovery, not for breeding purposes). I did not, however, say that positive mutations do not exist, only that they are highly unlikely.
Personally, I don’t see GE and conventional breeding as virtually the same thing. They aren’t, but to my way of thinking that is not a bad thing.
About Barley, don’t just take my word it Nexus , consider what V D Soleimani, B R Baum, D A Johnson. Genome. Ottawa: Apr 2006.Vol.49, Iss. 4; pg. 389, say:
Direct quotes are:
“However, BARE-1 retrotransposon (Manninen and Schulman 1993) was shown to be an active component of the barley genome (Suoniemi et al. 1996a; Jaaskelainen et al. 1999). Analysis of BARE-1 in barley has shown that the element is widely distributed throughout the genome (Suoniemi et al. 19966; Waugh et al. 1997). Using the Southern hybridization technique, estimates of BARE-1 copy number were shown to vary substantially within both the Hordeum genus and species (Vicient et al. 1999; Kalendar et al. 2000).”
“In barley, BARE-1 was shown to be actively transcribed in somatic tissue (Suoniemi et al. 1996a), leading to insertional polymorphism (Waugh et al. 1997). Estimates of BARE-1 copy number in the genus Hordeum was shown to vary considerably among different species (Vicient et al. 1999) and the estimates were found to be positively correlated with genome size, providing evidence for the role of retrotransposons in genome expansion.”
“Because the genetic base of modern barley cultivars is thought to be narrow (Martin et al. 1991; Horsely et al. 1995) as a result of using local germplasm, gross variations in retrotransposon composition in barley genomes are likely the result of differential transposition rates in lines and cultivars rather than vertical transmission of these elements from parents with diverse genomes. Cultivars are developed for various specific agronomic traits and environmental regions and are therefore subjected to various selection pressures that can trigger retrotransposition and related genome rearrangements. Activation of retrotransposons has been linked to various biotic and abiotic factors such as tissue culture (Hirochika 1993; Hirochika et al. 1996), climate change (Kalendar et al. 2000), methylation, epigenetic factors (Liu and Wendel 2000; Kaeppler et al. 2000; Kubis et al. 2003), and pathogen attack (Grandbastien et al. 1997).”
“The differential abundance of the BARE-1 retrotransposon in the genome of different barley cultivars and its dynamic nature provides further evidence for its major role in genome evolution on a micro-evolutionary time scale. Given that the barley cultivars studied here were all developed through breeding with closely related ancestors within the past 3 decades, any gross genomic differences are likely the result of transposition and related genomic reshuffling and can thus be considered novel.”
Nexus I posted last while your Ok was in transit. Sorry for not acknoledging yours.
However, I’m not arguing that in Barley mobile DNA such as BARE-1 has been proven to be a source of trait improvement ,
but merely that there is strong evidence for the occurence ongoing DNA rearrangements, = de novo mutations in plain speak , in barley (and other crops, and definitely in Wp mutation of soybean, that on the face of it constitutes some level of genetic hazard that is being treated in standard risk evaluation very differently to any DNA rearrangements that are associated with GM “events”. One is ignored, the other blown out of proportion.
As for tagging genes, keep it up.
I do see you’re point. In crops like barley such variation is ignored for good reason. It’s too expensive to look into and it’s unlikely to cause problems for humans (as opposed to the plant itself). For, solonaceae crops it’s a different story. I’d assume (though I don know) that people are a little more careful with them. I do wonder if there are regulations governing their safety.
(For those who don’t know, solonacae crops include potato, eggplant, capsicum and deadly night shade)
Any idea, David?
Personally, I think that the safety of GM crops should be verified, particularly when the GM protein is present in the food.
Its a matter of finding a balance that’s objectively related to hazard. I agree with you about spuds and deadly nightshade. They are rather good at inventing poisons. They do show that plants in general are chemically quite hazardous. No wonder only 300 or so of x thousands of species are suitable for food.
But, no I don’t know whether there are special regulations for more dangerous food crops , except in Canada where all crops are regulated. I’ll look out to see if I can find a better answer to that question.
One personal viewpoint I have is that new, preferably perennial crops like sandalwood
http://www.australianuts.com/index.htm
and wild perennial wheat (salt tolerant, Distichlis palmeri)
http://www.nypa.com.au
, and quinoa from the Andes are worth exploring.
Some of these might be better suited to Australian climate (and water/salt issues friendly) but they might need modern genetics to fine tune them and make them more useful. The fact that rapeseed was turned into a food crop points the way.
There a lot of talk about harnessing biodiversity, but when it comes to cropping, bigger barriers to crops biodiversity innovation are being erected,paradoxically in tmes when we really need to open up new avenues to different farming approaches that suit Australian challenges.
Actually, one thing I heard in a presentation recently, but haven’t followed up, is using GM pines for carbon-sink plantations. Apparently, pines give off turpentines (if I remember correctly) that help convert pollutants to ozone. Ozone in the lower atmosphere is quite a problem, particularly as it’s toxic to plants. Pines can be modified not to do this and thus reduce the negative effects of carbon sinks.
Interesting if true.
Re knock-out of pine turps
One fly in the ointment of these kind of idea is that chemicals (like turps) might protect the pines against some insects or other parasites , and turps negative pines might be more sensitive to diseases or insects.Perhps they have to be slightly leaky and just make a little bit of turps.
In this vein there was CSIRO talk a few years back of getting rid of the browning reaction in spuds (if I recall correctly) but not much was heard of it lately. Makes me wonder if brown-free spuds ain’t more susceptible to parasite attack.
But all in all, with all this discussion of GM risks, there’s so little discussion of the natural chemicals plants use to prevent themselves from being eaten. They are actually master chemists.
To continue treading on the deadly nightshade theme nexus
The Healthy Potential for Purple Tomatoes
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/oap/story.php?S_No=133&page=3
Researchers at Oregon State University have created purple-fruited tomatoes that include anthocyanins—the same class of health-promoting pigments in red wine that function as antioxidants and are believed to prevent heart disease
This story (2 years later ;0) ) features in this week’s Weekly Times “Hope as tomatoes go purple” piece page 92 by Sandra Godwin, accompaied with a great photo showing tomatoes looking like eggplants.
Its interesting to see that the poisenous ancestry of the purple genes in unedible wild tomatoes seems to fade into the background as health characteristic of anthocyanins as antioxidants feature in the story
Here’s an interesting and relevant excerpt, which will certainly confound eco-whackos. A potato with more Vitamin A. Without human intervention, it would never be found in nature. Will its genes “escape?” Will this upset “native wisdom?” Will Gaia-worshippers demand field trials and then destroy them?
http://allafrica.com/stories/200611080133.html
Uganda: Vitamin A Fortified Potato to Combat Blindness
New Vision (Kampala)
November 7, 2006 Posted to the web November 8, 2006
Alfred Wasike Kampala
UGANDANS can now combat malnutrition and blindness.
A team of reseachers at Namulonge and Kabanyoro Research Institute have come up with a Vitamin A fortified sweet potato variety. The sweet potato, which is orange, has carotene, the most important source of Vitamin A. Vitamin A is essential for good eyesight and lack of it can cause blindness or, in milder cases, inability to see or drive at night.
Prof. Patrick Rubaihayo, a plant breeder, who led the team of researchers said the variety was not genetically modified, but a product of pure breeding done in line with the United Nations’ Millenium Development Goals (MDGs).
Of course the plain every day carrot is an unnatural “mutant” picked up by Dutch gardeners around 1400. Wild carrots are whitish yellow, like parsnips.
You know what, David. I’m starting to notice that GMOs just don’t cause the controversy they used to a few years ago. In the good old days a thread like this would have had thousands of replies saying how GMOs are poisonous, will infiltrate the environment as well as destroying agricultural production, and are only produced so big-business can take over the world. It just doesn’t seem to happen much any longer. Anti-GMO activists are still there but they’re just not putting in the effort they used to. Maybe the times are changing?
If John Howard’s sly (and he most certainly is), he’ll use GMOs as a wedge soon. Want to keep Australian agriculture viable when our climate is changing? If so, we need GM crops to adapt. The states must lift their moratoria. I can see it now. Double wedge of nuclear power and GMOs.
I don’t think it’s clever or even too clever moves by John Howard that will decide the issue, it will be economics and and environmental benefits combined (such as conservation tillage and better water efficiency), sadly with extra emphasis caused by the drought and the urgencies of agricultural change driven by climate.
I totally agree that GMOs is an issue that’s fading. Just go to GOOGLE TRENDS at see what “genetically modified” is doing as a search term to verify this. It’s been on a downslide since 2004.
I can confirm exactly what’s going on at GOOGLE TRENDS is meaningful from search engine traffic per page at my website on my private tracker.
In the UK people are now fussing about transfats instead – where GMOs are the solution, not the problem. They are more worried about obesity, and the media world-wide are now bored with the same old same old from the activists. Sooner or later more people will realise objects to GMOs are just part of de facto trade barriers to protect EU farmers. The trouble is biodiesel makes this rather complicated for them. Did you notice how US biodiesel is significantly cheaper than EU biodiesel in basic cost structure?
All the time the arguments for benefits of GM technology are getting stronger and easier to make. The science is not stopping, and all the abnti-activists are succeeding in doing is making US based agbiotech companies more successful in the long term, by killing off EU competition. The Chinese of course will play their own game.
No one wants to take on the so-called fraud and evil of Golden Rice because the’ll only shoot themselves in the foot. Similarly with drought tolerant crops which are getting closer and closer.
The whole specious argument “that we have plenty or food and that technology is irrelevant to food security” is starting to be smashed apart by another wedge: demands for sustainable fuels from farming. Bioethanol is taking a large fraction of the corn crop off the market in the USA, the sugar market in South America and biodiesel likewise with oilseeds in the EU and Americas, all in the name of “saving the environment”. Further climate challenges make this even more dramatic on Australian markets.
Finally if the State moratoria arn’t lifted around 2007, the Australian Agbiotech efforts will only move off shore to South America (where they already do our field trials!). A year or so of that will finally be the time, when I’m 64, when I’ll be saying to myself, “what goes around comes around” and the real wedge will hit the antis-right in the.. . you guess where.
I thought the more common original carrots were purple, and variations in an assortment of other colours including white? I thought the Dutch variant wasn’t so much a rare mutant but a trait that was deliberately bred and crossed to make all orange carrots by the Dutch out of patriotism to the house of orange. Not that it really matters, but we can’t just let detribe make claims about rare mutants if we’ve heard otherwise!
one other small aspect in the GM debates is the smart breeding geeks (apply evolutionary processes in computer models then breed the best outcomes in the real world) saying GM will be old hat soon. Of course they’re probably wrong and its just squints techno yabber.
righto, back in my box then
Pinksi,
The source of my carroty information is a direct conversation with Peter Beyer at Freiburg. He is one of the inventors of Golden rice, and is a carotinoid expert. He may be wrong, but I doubt it, and he was very specific about the date and country of orange discovery so I believe he based his interesting statement on first hand knowledge of historical documents. His words mentioned its origins in a Dutch garden. He is a GERMAN professor and they are known to be precise (but I hasten to add also Peter has a wry sense of humour).
Carrots definitely have massive amounts of orange carotinoid, a separate phase in the carrot cell I understand. It’s an unusual trait to evolve naturally.
You’ve made me curious to find the historical evidence Pinkzy. In the meantime you can call me Carrotzy if you like. ;o)
The development of the original European carrot material
Journal Euphytica
Issue Volume 6, Number 1 / February, 1957
Pages 64-76
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n22865362k2732g0/
Summary
1. European carrot improvement began with material imported from the Arab countries. It consisted of a purple type, called ldquoredrdquo by authors before about 1700, and a yellow type growing largely above the ground.
2. The purple carrot played a role in France during the 14th–17th centuries, in the Netherlands during the 15th–18th centuries, and in Germany during the 18th and possibly the 19th centuries. At first the purple carrot probably was the main type grown, later its use became very limited.
3. The yellow carrot became more generally used than the purple. It gradually spread throughout Europe and probably started superseding the purple in the 16th century.
4. The white and the orange carrots were probably selected from the yellow.
5. During the 17th and 18th centuries the white carrots were used in the French kitchen. In other countries they never became as popular as in France.
6. The first orange coloured garden carrots were produced in the Netherlands. Late Horn and Half long Horn probably were developed in the 17th century, whereas Short Horn probably was produced in the 18th century. It is possible that Long Orange types fit for kitchen use were produced in Holland during the 17th century by selection from the long yellow carrot, possibly after crossing with an unpalatable but more intensely coloured red-orange type. The orange Brunsvie appeared in Germany between 1684 and 1740. Originally it had the character of a forage carrot.
alright ta, but enough of the pillow talk else I blow curried carrot chunks
the house of orange became dutch only by adoption, not direct lineage. roots in foreign places, just like the carrot
Ok Pinxy winks, I get your drift , but just to see if I can really cause you to splutter, remember many authorities dispute the exclusive foreign influences of the carrot, and point out the deep roots of wild-white indigenous carrots in prehistoric Europe:
Possible relationships between wild and cultivated carrots (Daucus carota L.) in the Netherlands
Summary A theory about the descent and development of modern carrot cultivars in Europe formulated by Banga (1963) is discussed. According to this author, the cultivated carrot originates from Afghan carrot material. Furthermore, the origin of carrots with fleshy, orange roots is suggested to lay in the Netherlands in the 17th century. However, it is shown that wild populations of the carrot with white coloured roots have occurred in Europe since prehistoric times. During the late Middle Ages and Renaissance these carrots were used as medicinal plants. It is suggested that these indigenous carrots have played a minor role in the development of modern cultivated carrots.
Journal Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution
Issue Volume 29, Number 1 / February, 1981
Pages 369-375
Willem A. Brandenburg1
Department of Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants, Agricultural University, Haagsteeg 3, NL-6708 PM Wageningen, The Netherlands
yeah yeah knew it BUT my subtle cheeky point was that the Netherlands is mostly manmade, therefore we can equally despute whether ANYTHING, be it rooted or rootless, has ANY ancient origins in those moist nether regions!
And hey, even the Dutch national anthem says the Dutch themselves come from German stock (read ‘Germanic’ if it’s more palatable for you than German). (Perhaps the original anthem was written carroty as a witty reference to the whole orangey affair but someone with different ethnic preferences transcribed it as germany instead?)
Detribe,
For the record, if you’re looking at drought resistance in plants I’m putting up a nomination.
In the 2002 drought around here, when species such as mulga (Acacia aneura), bendee (A catenulata), poplar box (Eucalyptus populnea) and silverleaf ironbark(E. melanophloia) were losing their leaves, in the same area wild orange (Capparis mitchellii) was putting out green shoots and flowering.
Thanks Ian. The Orange will keep Pinxsi happy too.
very
So! Orange, not green?