5 comments

  • caretrs 3 minutes ago
    Wouldn't this cause ecosystem issues if seeds from 100 years ago get planted in the same area?
    • timcobb 2 minutes ago
      No these require human cultivation to survive.
  • tmaly 39 minutes ago
    This is interesting for people with gluten allergies, maybe there is a way they could one day consume the ancient wheat.
  • skmurphy 54 minutes ago
    key points about wheat Gross (the Italian farmer) discovered in 1990 his attic:

    + It fared better during droughts, growing so tall that it overshadowed the weeds. It didn’t need fertilizer or herbicides.

    + It's height can be a liability. Heavy winds, rains and hail can make the tall stems flip over before the grain ripens, ruining harvests.

    + Working with the lab of Teofilo Vamerali, Perobelli determined that the grain was Triticum turgidum—literally “swollen wheat” in Latin. Known in English as “poulard wheat,” it had originally evolved in what today are Turkey, Egypt and other nearby Mediterranean countries. And searching agricultural references, Perobelli found that it had been grown in Italy, too, until farmers shifted toward higher-yield commercial varieties. That solved the mystery of the seed bag stashed away in the attic: It had survived because Grossi’s grandfather saved some of the heritage grains.

    • ahartmetz 34 minutes ago
      Height is a solvable problem today. Chemical growth regulators make wheat shorter and prevent it from buckling and falling over. They aren't the most suspect chemicals, but not exactly above all suspicion neither...
      • benjiro29 26 minutes ago
        Height is a solvable problem today. Chemical growth regulators

        Or you do what Claudio Grossi did, and you mix the ancient grain with short growing grains that add stability. Sometimes the solution is simpler then just throwing chemicals at the problem.

        • ahartmetz 12 minutes ago
          It seems like the genes that cause long stalks also have other benefits, otherwise they'd have been bred out a long time ago. At least that is what I figure.
          • skmurphy 9 minutes ago
            They confer advantage over many weeds according to the article.
        • hommelix 10 minutes ago
          This is a great practical approach, but when you harvest the crop you get a mix of higher crop and lower crop. It is more difficult to sell some mix than a pure crop with known properties. Technically, it would be possible to build a harvester with two cutters at different heights to separate the crops, but I've never seen one.
          • Retric 2 minutes ago
            That’s true in generation 1, but breeding isn’t a single generation. You repeat things across generations until you find a stable mix.
          • benjiro29 5 minutes ago
            You forgot about the height. It will overshadow the smaller crop, and lack of sunlight on this smaller crop may simply not produce any ears as a result. Just a "balcony farmer" but that is what i have seen with most plants that are overshadowed by dense/taller plants.
    • loufe 24 minutes ago
      I know I tend to like some takeaway "summary" comments on HN, but this one just feels like snippets from an LLM reading the article. What's the thinking? The original text isn't particularly long or dense, and this isn't commentary.
      • skmurphy 20 minutes ago
        It's hand curated verbatim extracts designed to encourage HN members to read the full article. The clickbait title does not provide accurate context for the article which details events from 1990.

        Reasonable people may differ and your mileage may vary. What were your key takeaways from the article?

        I left out the points about shortcomings of Bourlag's wheat and the value of genetic diversity in a population. But my focus was to encourage people to read an article I found significant.

        On a side note I don't use AI to craft HN comments beyond sometimes using Grammarly to check them for basic errors.

      • barney54 20 minutes ago
        What do you mean “what’s the thinking?”
        • skmurphy 19 minutes ago
          I think the meaning was "why did you write this?"
  • the-golden-one 1 hour ago
    Clickbait title
    • PeterHolzwarth 57 minutes ago
      Is it? It seems to describe exactly what happened: a farmer finds a sack of grain in his attic left by his great grandfather and plants them for the hell of it. Interesting things result.
      • gnabgib 1 minute ago
        You're likely basing this on the (better) updated title.. the original included "almost biblical" in the title. Shame mods didn't document the change.
    • kayson 1 hour ago
      It is a pretty terrible title, but the article is interesting
  • netsharc 19 minutes ago
    So Smithsonian magazine has quotes from the bible now... is it because of the ethno-religious fascists (like the Taliban, abusing religion for dictatorship) running the country?
    • devilsdata 4 minutes ago
      Right? I can get behind it if it also includes historical mentions of grains from other religious and cultural texts. But only the Bible? Pure pandering to the lead-brained population segments of North America.