 If you didn't ask such group vectors, you wouldn't like to ask them. I'm over 50, I know. The thing that brings to mind is that we're in the age of the genome. I don't know how long it's going to be before we can read the genome in the proper way and associate the genes with characteristics. But when we can, do you foresee an agricultural revolution occurring as a consequence, the application of that knowledge? Or do you think you're doing in the concept of restraining possibly the use of utilising that information? I think that an agricultural system that uses all of the homex tools will be able to do a lot of things that we couldn't do without those tools. But that a system that should try to lie only on those... When I actually saw somebody graying out homex as being hypothesis free, and we used to call it fishing expeditions, but now it's called hypothesis free and it can be presented as some wonderful thing. I think if... I don't see that here. I think you've got a really nice balance of disciplines. But when I was at Davis, they had eight open positions and so they had eight genomics people. And I think that was a real mistake. I think they realized that subsequently. We need plant readers, crop physiologists, soil scientists, a whole gamut of agronomists, a whole gamut of agriculture. And we need them all working together the way they do here on your good days. Is that answer your question? No, it's not quite. What will happen when... At the moment, there's quite a lot of hydrogen and it's quite inaccurate. At the sun stage, we're going to be able to associate the 30,000 or 40,000 genes or whatever it is with particular characteristics. I don't part of the ecosystem, it's part of the panicle structure, whatever it might be. And we'll be able to go through all the crops. At that point, will we be on the door of a new world of the nature agriculture? Will we be designing the crops that are going to be incredibly successful? And are there constraints to that tree imposed on us by evolution itself? Well, I read that the US creator went on for about a year ago, I think. He was basically saying that he had all been wrong investing all of the money and time in deciphering the human genome. And because of that time, they were all thinking, well, once we've got it in a few years down the road, we have all these cures for new diseases, for diseases, and new medicines, and depasities. So you said nothing has come out of it. Probably the other way, like he usually does, but it goes in the same direction as what is the real... You're saying, okay, so now, I mean, before we had the rice genome, we were able to think of the idea of doing C4 rice. Okay, so having the rice genome and those tools may make that possible, but it's not something that we couldn't have thought of without the genome. And so you're asking, are there going to be, you know, big breakthroughs like that that will get from the genome that wouldn't get other blood or the veins? I'm betting not worth that statement. We come back in about 10 years and then we can see where we are. Let me make a follow-up point, though. So you were talking about designing whole new plants. That's something you mentioned in the past there. So I think that is a really big step from understanding everything in the genome to being able to design a plant from scratch. We may be able to do that something. And then I think we might actually be able to make C3 to C4 level giant steps, but not just to understand the uses of diversity. The giant mind is, if I can call it biological enigma. I don't find evidence to suggest that diversity is always good, because you ought to consider that may not maximize the benefit, but the risk. And let me give you an example. Right system, for example. If you look at the biological productivity or economic productivity on a per-day basis, it's highest that you can get in any natural system where you have used diversity. And I myself called in a number of years and microwaves, and we used to compare cultivated soils with non-cultivated soils. We find a lot of diversity in non-cultivated soils, but cultivated soil is much more productive. So I really don't know. There are similar examples, but another study of the children looking at nitrogen addition and nitrogen addition to natural biomass increases productivity, but decreases diversity. So it's certainly possible to break that link in agriculture. Some of you may be familiar with take-off decline, where if you grow a continuous wheat, you get this nasty fungus called take-off, but if you keep growing a continuous wheat, it goes away. And that has seen it rock instead, I think, for the first time, but it's at first, but it's also been seen in Australia, and I think in the Paloose as well. So there certainly are countless examples to the idea that greater diversity is always going to give you greater stability, productivity, and so on. So really what I'm saying is, I think this issue of diversity is one that we need to take seriously, that we need to do experiments that are not designed to, whenever I have a new graduate student that says, I want to do an experiment to prove X. And I say, no, you don't. You want to do an experiment to find out whether X, and that's the approach we need to take in looking at diversity. What are the relationships, and how do we look at diversity in space and time, different spatial scales and all that sort of thing? How are we going to overcome market forces and stupid political decisions? When I grew up, there were sophisticated crop protections, many crops, all kinds of things. Nowadays, there's only four crops, wheat, canola, maize, and the fourth one I already forgot, only one existed, the three in Mexico. So all the other crops have disappeared primarily because they weren't competitive anymore, compared to other cheaper sources of that, coming into Germany once the EU got the stoppers in particular. And the last big change happened starting about three years ago, when the big commercial biogas unit was installed and requires maize, green maize as the feed stuff, because it's highly subsidised, the renewable energy in Germany, which is a big stupid system. So we're growing up essentially agriculture everywhere before concluding these things. So is there any way to actually turn back the wheel of time or not? I think that's a really big problem. When wheat fails, global, what's this new wheat thing that's running around? Or when potatoes fail because of late life, and it spreads throughout the world, those of us who are growing buckwheat and sunflower are going to get a really high price for our crop. But if you as an individual farmer do the risk benefit analysis, you're going to say, we would be better off if there was a greater diversity of crops in the region. That would minimise the risk that they're all going to fail on crops and minimise the risk of us having a regional family. Why don't you grow buckwheat? So you've identified a problem exactly unless the level of diversity which is socially optimal, the optimal for the benefits of us collectively is not the same level of diversity that will get from individual farmers making their own decisions in the current regulatory, incentive, subsidy environment. So I think we're not going to get a change in that without a change in the subsidy regulation incentive. I wouldn't be there if you put this to best. And try to make it more scientific. When you think about the rationale kind of this, it's ought to do with genetic variation for adaptation to the different bite environment together, whether they're different levels of code or different diseases associated with those changes. So then, what we've been doing for many years is calculating components of barriers on the plant side to genetic barriers on the various levels of environmental barriers. With that information, it's quite easy to construct different scenarios of different types of environmental variation where sometimes monoculture comes out on top, sometimes inter-company comes out on top, and sometimes rotation comes out on top. It all depends on the pattern of environmental variation and how you organise for genetic variation by the inter-company. Don't you need some term analysis for the interactions between the species yet? So that's part of making the scientific-based model where you're modelling the match to environmental micro-committee and the genotype of inter-company as a match to that environment. You can design optimally diverse or what to mean uniform. Farming systems depend on which aspects that you might want to maintain before, of which you would expect to be. Can't you make a whole thing more scientific and let it come back to this, be a political issue if we think about this in evidence? That's a great idea. And when you submit the paper to Nature, you can suggest me as a reviewer. How many years do you have on the requirements? If you want to study, get doing it. More questions after the pause. Do you actually think that we understand the genetic variation that we have in our model cultures? I'm not completely disappointed with the support. I was thinking, if you're telling me of the problem study experiment where from out of the blue we've got resistance all of a sudden in the period of weeks to a pattern. No, the change is actually a change and the soil microbes are a change. I was also thinking of one of my colleagues' experiments where they had genetic diversity in their soil plots and they used clover species to bake up the diversity before they used seed where they needed more genetic diversity. It was the ones that had the genetic diversity within the species that were more successful. I wonder whether we have that sort of diversity. We know we have that diversity in rice within any wide accession. Do we actually understand what role that's actually playing? That's a good question. We certainly have the possibility of a variety of mixtures where you have varieties that have similar agronomic grades in harvest age and so on but have different disease resistance genes. One of the views of my book suggested that I might appear too short to refer to that approach and suggest some papers that I should look at. I'll be doing that. How important is the genome scale variation that's saying that the Muscovies had two of the land races two or three or three pedigraves. The model varieties that we are breeding nowadays typically have between 25 and more than 30. But they're still different. My question is breeding in more genetic diversity by widening the pedigrave. Does that matter much or not? I think diversity does make it. Is it not the form of diversity that matters most? I think somebody else can probably answer that better. If you've got a diploid species if the diversity that's key to some kind of disease resistance or something is what allele you have in some particular locus then the diploid species can only have two at that locus and the only way to get more is to have polyfoil or to have another genotype there. So the question is what about diversity across the whole genome can that solve a problem where you have to have diversity at a locus next? I'm sure that people will answer that better. Anybody else who would like to comment or question hey, you can answer that question. My life is a great thing with microcosm. I've experimented a breeding problem that's the most recombination in the genome. So I have to get the grinding genome. I have a plan with a very large number of donors. I have a lot of donors and also a lot of the cycle of recombination. So most of the breeding program are two kinds of problems that are very important. So after a year of time you can put that into a great guide. At the end of the road you'll see some of those in a period of time and they are very diverse. So that's one aspect. Using more hands will give you a better locus diversity I think. The other thing I have to bring up is that there are also diversity in some way that you may... I'll give you one example. Recently you cited Sue's paper on the interplanetary route. He happened to be... he was here just a week before he came. I knew that he was going to put you together. A few years ago they had a system in Unan province that worked in land races up in the rice terraces. For some reason we are stable in diseases. When they investigated it turned out... I mean there are patches of... but the population evolved naturally to deal with these diseases and not the standard one gene or one gene type of racism. So what makes it a population? A plant population? A human population? I think the plant population. So one suggesting that in certain ecosystems the plant may have evolved mechanism to deal with the stress and they could be a diverse... they could be multiple genotypes in the community. They are not mixture of the plant as a pure standard but then within the village there are multiple patches like that. So that's a paper you cited in the plant. It has evolved for 10 years time into a bossaic plant. So that's... I think we have a chance that would be a great place to... to manage the disease and also stabilize the system by using multiple genotypes and patches, not in the mixture that is happening. But that was a pattern is the result of human choices. It's not some system where you threw out a bunch of genotypes and let ecological and environmental... ecological and evolutionary processes happen and that led naturally to was a... something that humans have done. And it would be an example of the kind of thing that I think we ought to be investigating. It's over thousands of years it's rice terraces. So generation over generation the family know about the nature of the plant so that type of knowledge was sort of passed on and then that lead to a system that is very high. Those rice terraces give it four times the impact. That's only a unique problem to the high. So there's a lot to be learned in those sort of diverse systems but not necessary. It's still fairly intent on the culture but then have a system where promote diversity. I like Ash based diversity because I think we'll stop here. More is planned around in tomorrow. Anybody has heard of examples to bring up that could either support his principles or challenge them or add new ones to that. Please contact him either the person or by email. I'm sure he'll be happy to respond. Other than that, please let's give him a round of applause.